DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-11, 14-18, and 21-28 have been examined.
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 U.S.C. § 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.
The invention, as taught in Claims 1-3, 5, 9-11, 14-18, and 21-28, is directed to “mental steps” and “mathematical steps” without significantly more.
The claims recite:
• generating, by a machine learning model executed by the computing device, a skeleton architecture of a solution to the operator (i.e., mathematical steps)
• the skeleton architecture including a plurality of machine learning model categories (mathematical steps or mental steps)
• generating,…, a pipeline that describes a plurality of components in an artificial-intelligence (AI) workflow and how the components combine in graph form, the pipeline defining a plurality of machine-learning models as individual steps of the workflow (i.e., mental steps)
• generating,... an artificial intelligence (AI)-based solution (i.e., mathematical steps)
• machine learning model (i.e., mathematical steps)
• the third machine learning model is organized in the pipeline in series with the first machine learning model (i.e., mathematical steps)
• processing the data by the AI based solution (i.e., mathematical steps)
• pipeline (i.e., mathematical steps)
Regarding pipeline, Applicant's Specification recites:
[0048] In one embodiment, the Mentalist is a virtual assistant that product owners can onboard instantly inside their own team productivity environments, such as Slack®. Mentalist 302 may provide an AI solution architecture through understanding the product needs, the relevant product success metrics, and any data resource constraints (all of which may be parts of a desired operator). On one embodiment, the Mentalist 302 may eliminate or reduce the cost and time required to hire an expensive full-time AI/ML architect. A Mentalist-designed architecture may be presented in a simple way that anyone with elementary knowledge of AI can easily understand. Mentalist 302 can also respond to AI requests in natural language like "show me how to do speech dubbing" by providing links to example architectures. Product owners can rapidly architect alternative solutions mockups before making a final decision and commit to an implementation. Mentalist 302 provides recommended vendors, cost and delivery time estimates. Given the description of the input and output in plain English of the desired outcome, the Mentalist may generate a pipeline of operators that implements the desired outcome. The Mentalist may achieve this by translating the request of its user to a schema by using technology, comparable to machine translation technology, automated chatbot generators, and similar technology.
[0049] To find the most relevant operators, the Mentalist may use natural language processing to understand what operators are needed to accomplish the outcome desired. Part of finding the most relevant operators may, in some embodiments, include finding operators from a pre- existing database of operators. The database may tag operators with certain keywords to allow the Mentalist to more easily identify an operator. The database may also include pipelines of operators, in addition to elementary operators. The Mentalist may, in some embodiments, use these pipelines or similar pipelines as part of a "best" or "suggested" configuration to facilitate a desired outcome.
• information describing a final objective to be achieved (i.e., mental steps)
• corresponding categories (i.e., mental steps)
• intermediate objective used to achieve the final objective (i.e., mental steps)
• first machine learning model (i.e., mental steps)
• second machine learning model (i.e., mental steps)
• third machine learning model (i.e., mental steps)
Claim 1
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “1. (Previously Presented) A method, comprising…” Therefore, it is a “method” (or “process”), which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “YES”.
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 1 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 1 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mental steps” and “mathematical steps”:
• generating, by a machine learning model executed by the computing device, a skeleton architecture of a solution to the operator (i.e., mathematical steps)
• the skeleton architecture including a plurality of machine learning model categories (mathematical steps or mental steps)
• generating,…, a pipeline that describes a plurality of components in an artificial-intelligence (AI) workflow and how the components combine in graph form, the pipeline defining a plurality of machine-learning models as individual steps of the workflow (i.e., mental steps)
• generating,... an artificial intelligence (AI)-based solution (i.e., mathematical steps)
• machine learning model (i.e., mathematical steps)
• the third machine learning model is organized in the pipeline in series with the first machine learning model (i.e., mathematical steps)
• processing the data by the AI based solution (i.e., mathematical steps)
• pipeline (i.e., mathematical steps)
Regarding pipeline, Applicant's Specification recites:
[0048] In one embodiment, the Mentalist is a virtual assistant that product owners can onboard instantly inside their own team productivity environments, such as Slack®. Mentalist 302 may provide an AI solution architecture through understanding the product needs, the relevant product success metrics, and any data resource constraints (all of which may be parts of a desired operator). On one embodiment, the Mentalist 302 may eliminate or reduce the cost and time required to hire an expensive full-time AI/ML architect. A Mentalist-designed architecture may be presented in a simple way that anyone with elementary knowledge of AI can easily understand. Mentalist 302 can also respond to AI requests in natural language like "show me how to do speech dubbing" by providing links to example architectures. Product owners can rapidly architect alternative solutions mockups before making a final decision and commit to an implementation. Mentalist 302 provides recommended vendors, cost and delivery time estimates. Given the description of the input and output in plain English of the desired outcome, the Mentalist may generate a pipeline of operators that implements the desired outcome. The Mentalist may achieve this by translating the request of its user to a schema by using technology, comparable to machine translation technology, automated chatbot generators, and similar technology.
[0049] To find the most relevant operators, the Mentalist may use natural language processing to understand what operators are needed to accomplish the outcome desired. Part of finding the most relevant operators may, in some embodiments, include finding operators from a pre- existing database of operators. The database may tag operators with certain keywords to allow the Mentalist to more easily identify an operator. The database may also include pipelines of operators, in addition to elementary operators. The Mentalist may, in some embodiments, use these pipelines or similar pipelines as part of a "best" or "suggested" configuration to facilitate a desired outcome.
• information describing a final objective to be achieved (i.e., mental steps)
• corresponding categories (i.e., mental steps)
• intermediate objective used to achieve the final objective (i.e., mental steps)
• first machine learning model (i.e., mental steps)
• second machine learning model (i.e., mental steps)
• third machine learning model (i.e., mental steps)
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A computing device
(2) A “receiving” of “information describing a final objective to be achieved”
(3) A “displaying” of a “plurality of options to access,... a plurality of corresponding AI-based solutions including the AI-based solution”
(4) A “receiving” of a “selection”
(5) A “providing” of “access to the AI-based solution via the platform”
(6) A “receiving” of “data associated with the final objective”
(7) A “providing” of “an output of the AI-based solution”
(8) A second machine learning model is organized in the pipeline in parallel with the first machine learning model
(9) packaging, by the computing device, training code and dependencies of each component of the pipeline as a Docker images
(10) executing, by the computing device, the Docker images in a hybrid-cloud environment
(11) automatically running training jobs in the cloud and adjusting processing resources based on performance metrics
(1) A “computing device” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
This “computing device” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
(2) A “receiving” of “information describing a final objective to be achieved” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
This “receiving” of “information describing a final objective to be achieved” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
(3) A “displaying” of a “plurality of options to access,... a plurality of corresponding AI-based solutions including the AI-based solution” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (h) recites in part:
Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include:
***
vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This “displaying” of a “plurality of options to access,... a plurality of corresponding AI-based solutions including the AI-based solution” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
(4) A “receiving” of a “selection” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
This “receiving” of a “selection” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
(5) A “providing” of “access to the AI-based solution via the platform” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (h) recites in part:
Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include:
***
vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This “providing” of “access to the AI-based solution via the platform” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
(6) A “receiving” of “data associated with the final objective” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
This “receiving” of “data associated with the final objective” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
(7) A “providing” of “an output of the AI-based solution” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (h) recites in part:
Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include:
***
vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This “providing” of “an output of the AI-based solution” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
(8) A “second machine learning model is organized in the pipeline in parallel with the first machine learning model” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”);
This “second machine learning model is organized in the pipeline in parallel with the first machine learning model” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
(9) A “packaging, by the computing device, training code and dependencies of each component of the pipeline as a Docker images” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
This “packaging, by the computing device, training code and dependencies of each component of the pipeline as a Docker images” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
(10) A “executing, by the computing device, the Docker images in a hybrid-cloud environment” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
This “executing, by the computing device, the Docker images in a hybrid-cloud environment” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
(11) A “automatically running training jobs in the cloud and adjusting processing resources based on performance metrics” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
This “automatically running training jobs in the cloud and adjusting processing resources based on performance metrics” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A computing device
(2) A “receiving” of “information describing a final objective to be achieved”
(3) A “displaying” of a “plurality of options to access,... a plurality of corresponding AI-based solutions including the AI-based solution”
(4) A “receiving” of a “selection”
(5) A “providing” of “access to the AI-based solution via the platform”
(6) A “receiving” of “data associated with the final objective”
(7) A “providing” of “an output of the AI-based solution”
(8) A second machine learning model is organized in the pipeline in parallel with the first machine learning model
(9) packaging, by the computing device, training code and dependencies of each component of the pipeline as a Docker images
(10) executing, by the computing device, the Docker images in a hybrid-cloud environment
(11) automatically running training jobs in the cloud and adjusting processing resources based on performance metrics
(1) A “computing device” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
(2) A “receiving” of “information describing a final objective to be achieved” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
(3) A “displaying” of a “plurality of options to access,... a plurality of corresponding AI-based solutions including the AI-based solution” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (h) recites in part:
Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include:
***
vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
(4) A “receiving” of a “selection” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
(5) A “providing” of “access to the AI-based solution via the platform” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (h) recites in part:
Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include:
***
vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
(6) A “receiving” of “data associated with the final objective” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
(7) A “providing” of “an output of the AI-based solution” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (h) recites in part:
Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include:
***
vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
(8) A “second machine learning model is organized in the pipeline in parallel with the first machine learning model” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”);
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
(9) A “packaging, by the computing device, training code and dependencies of each component of the pipeline as a Docker images” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
(10) A “executing, by the computing device, the Docker images in a hybrid-cloud environment” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
(11) A “automatically running training jobs in the cloud and adjusting processing resources based on performance metrics” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein:
the information is in a natural language, and the method further comprises:
generating, based on the machine learning model, a plurality of computer-recognizable commands from the natural language; and
generating an architecture of the particular AI-based solution based on the plurality of computer-recognizable commands; and
packaging the AI-based solution, including its training code and dependencies, as a Docker image deployable in the hybrid-cloud environment.
Applicant’s Claim 2 merely teaches unspecified information in a natural language format, generating commands in a natural language format, and generating an unspecified “solution”.
Use of a Docker image for application of the user’s workflow goals on generic computing resources are mere instructions to apply an exception. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 2 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites:
3. The method of claim 1, wherein generating the Al-based solution comprises:
creating an architecture of the second pipeline that includes at least a third machine learning model and a fourth machine learning model in which:
an output of the third machine learning model is provided as input to one or more additional machine learning models;
an output of the third machine learning model and an output of the fourth machine learning model are combined and provided as input to a fifth machine learning model; and
running the second pipeline in the hybrid-cloud environment and generating benchmark information based on performance metrics of the pipeline.
Applicant’s Claim 3 merely teaches pipelined mathematical machine learning models.
“Running” the pipeline for application of the user’s workflow goals on generic computing resources are mere instructions to apply an exception. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 3 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites:
5. The method of claim 1, wherein:
The first pipeline describes a plurality of machine learning models as components in an AI workflow and how they combine in a graph form; and
the workflow is executed in a distributed computing environment that allows concurrent execution of the components across multiple computing devices.
Applicant’s Claim 5 merely teaches pipelined mathematical machine learning models.
“Execution” of a workflow for application of the user’s workflow goals on generic computing resources are mere instructions to apply an exception. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 5 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites:
9. The method of claim 1, wherein:
the information corresponds to a process, and the method further comprises:
determining, by the machine learning model, a modification to the process based on the information; and
generating a modified process based on the modification; and
executing the modified process in the hybrid-cloud environment to generate benchmark data indicating improvements in latency or accuracy relative to a previous workflow.
Applicant’s Claim 9 merely teaches unspecified information, a determination of a modification to a process, and generating a modified process.
Execution for application of the user’s workflow goals on generic computing resources are mere instructions to apply an exception. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 9 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 10
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “10. (Currently Amended) A processing device, operatively coupled to a memory, the processing device configured to…” Therefore, it is a “device” (or “apparatus”), which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “YES”.
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 10 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 10 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mental steps” and “mathematical steps”:
• generate, by a machine learning model, a skeleton architecture of a solution to the operator (i.e., mathematical steps)
• the skeleton architecture including a plurality of machine learning model categories (mathematical steps or mental steps)
• generate,…, a pipeline that describes a plurality of components in an artificial-intelligence (AI) workflow and how the components combine in graph form, the pipeline defining a plurality of machine-learning models as individual steps of the workflow (i.e., mental steps)
• generate,... an artificial intelligence (AI)-based solution (i.e., mathematical steps)
• machine learning model (i.e., mathematical steps)
• the third machine learning model is organized in the pipeline in series with the first machine learning model (i.e., mathematical steps)
• process the data by the AI based solution (i.e., mathematical steps)
• pipeline (i.e., mathematical steps)
[0048] In one embodiment, the Mentalist is a virtual assistant that product owners can onboard instantly inside their own team productivity environments, such as Slack®. Mentalist 302 may provide an AI solution architecture through understanding the product needs, the relevant product success metrics, and any data resource constraints (all of which may be parts of a desired operator). On one embodiment, the Mentalist 302 may eliminate or reduce the cost and time required to hire an expensive full-time AI/ML architect. A Mentalist-designed architecture may be presented in a simple way that anyone with elementary knowledge of AI can easily understand. Mentalist 302 can also respond to AI requests in natural language like "show me how to do speech dubbing" by providing links to example architectures. Product owners can rapidly architect alternative solutions mockups before making a final decision and commit to an implementation. Mentalist 302 provides recommended vendors, cost and delivery time estimates. Given the description of the input and output in plain English of the desired outcome, the Mentalist may generate a pipeline of operators that implements the desired outcome. The Mentalist may achieve this by translating the request of its user to a schema by using technology, comparable to machine translation technology, automated chatbot generators, and similar technology.
[0049] To find the most relevant operators, the Mentalist may use natural language processing to understand what operators are needed to accomplish the outcome desired. Part of finding the most relevant operators may, in some embodiments, include finding operators from a pre- existing database of operators. The database may tag operators with certain keywords to allow the Mentalist to more easily identify an operator. The database may also include pipelines of operators, in addition to elementary operators. The Mentalist may, in some embodiments, use these pipelines or similar pipelines as part of a "best" or "suggested" configuration to facilitate a desired outcome.
• information describing a final objective to be achieved (i.e., mental steps)
• corresponding categories (i.e., mental steps)
• intermediate objective used to achieve the final objective (i.e., mental steps)
• first machine learning model (i.e., mental steps)
• second machine learning model (i.e., mental steps)
• third machine learning model (i.e., mental steps)
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A “receiving” of “information describing a final objective to be achieved”
(2) A “displaying” of “a plurality of options to access,... a plurality of corresponding AI-based solutions including the AI-based solution”
(3) A “receiving” of a “selection”
(4) A “providing” of “access to the AI-based solution via the platform”
(5) A “receiving” of “data associated with the final objective”
(6) A “providing” of an “output of the AI-based solution”
(7) processing device
(8) packaging, by the processing device, training code and dependencies of each component of the pipeline as a Docker images
(9) executing, by the processing device, the Docker images in a hybrid-cloud environment
(10) automatically running training jobs in the cloud and adjusting processing resources based on performance metrics
(1) A “receiving” of “information describing a final objective to be achieved” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
This “receiving” of “information describing a final objective to be achieved” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
(2) A “displaying” of “a plurality of options to access,... a plurality of corresponding AI-based solutions including the AI-based solution” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (h) recites in part:
Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include:
***
vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This “displaying” of “a plurality of options to access,... a plurality of corresponding AI-based solutions including the AI-based solution” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
(3) A “receiving” of a “selection” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
This “receiving” of a “selection” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
(4) A “providing” of “access to the AI-based solution via the platform” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (h) recites in part:
Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include:
***
vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This “providing” of “access to the AI-based solution via the platform” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
(5) A “receiving” of “data associated with the final objective” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
This “receiving” of “data associated with the final objective” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
(6) A “providing” of an “output of the AI-based solution” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (h) recites in part:
Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include:
***
vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This “providing” of an “output of the AI-based solution” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
(7) A “processing device” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(d)(I) recites:
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
This “processing device” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
(8) A “packaging, by the processing device, training code and dependencies of each component of the pipeline as a Docker images” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
This “packaging, by the processing device, training code and dependencies of each component of the pipeline as a Docker images” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
(9) A “executing, by the processing device, the Docker images in a hybrid-cloud environment” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
This “executing, by the processing device, the Docker images in a hybrid-cloud environment” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
(10) A “automatically running training jobs in the cloud and adjusting processing resources based on performance metrics” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
This “automatically running training jobs in the cloud and adjusting processing resources based on performance metrics” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A “receiving” of “information describing a final objective to be achieved”
(2) A “displaying” of “a plurality of options to access,... a plurality of corresponding AI-based solutions including the AI-based solution”
(3) A “receiving” of a “selection”
(4) A “providing” of “access to the AI-based solution via the platform”
(5) A “receiving” of “data associated with the final objective”
(6) A “providing” of an “output of the AI-based solution”
(7) processing device
(8) packaging, by the processing device, training code and dependencies of each component of the pipeline as a Docker images
(9) executing, by the processing device, the Docker images in a hybrid-cloud environment
(10) automatically running training jobs in the cloud and adjusting processing resources based on performance metrics
(1) A “receiving” of “information describing a final objective to be achieved” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
(2) A “displaying” of “a plurality of options to access,... a plurality of corresponding AI-based solutions including the AI-based solution” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (h) recites in part:
Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include:
***
vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
(3) A “receiving” of a “selection” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
(4) A “providing” of “access to the AI-based solution via the platform” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (h) recites in part:
Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include:
***
vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
(5) A “receiving” of “data associated with the final objective” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
(6) A “providing” of an “output of the AI-based solution” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (h) recites in part:
Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include:
***
vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
(7) A “processing device” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(d)(I) recites:
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
(8) A “packaging, by the processing device, training code and dependencies of each component of the pipeline as a Docker images” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
(9) A “executing, by the processing device, the Docker images in a hybrid-cloud environment” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
(10) A “automatically running training jobs in the cloud and adjusting processing resources based on performance metrics” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 10 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites:
11. The processing device of claim 10, wherein:
the information is in a natural language, and
the processing device further configured to:
generate, based on the machine learning model, a plurality of computer-recognizable commands from the natural language; and
generate an architecture of the AI-based solution based on the plurality of computer-recognizable commands.
Applicant’s Claim 11 merely teaches unspecified information in a natural language format, generating commands in a natural language format, and generating an unspecified “solution”. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 11 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites:
14. The processing device of claim 10, the operations further comprising:
generate, a benchmark for the AI-based solution; and
display the with the option to access the AI-based solution in the marketplace platform.
Applicant’s Claim 14 merely teaches generating a benchmark for a “solution” and displaying the benchmark. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 14 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites:
15. (Currently Amended) The processing device of claim 10, the processing device further configured to:
generate a plurality of Al-based solutions based on the information; and
display a plurality of options to access the plurality of AI-based solutions in the platform, the platform displaying one or more characteristics associated with individual AI-based solutions of the plurality of Al-based solutions.
Applicant’s Claim 15 merely teaches generating a plurality of solutions and displaying a plurality of options to access the “solutions”. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 15 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 16
Claim 16 recites:
16. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 10, the operations further comprising:
16. (Currently Amended) The processing device of claim 10, the processing device further configured to:
receive a selection identifying a first one of the plurality of AI-based solutions in the platform; and
in response to receiving the selection, provide access to the first one of the Al-based solutions via the platform.
Applicant’s Claim 16 merely teaches receiving a selection identifying a first one of the plurality of solutions and providing access to the first one of the solutions. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 16 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 17
Claim 17 recites:
17. The processing device of claim 10, the processing device further configured to:
receive an authorization to add a second one of the Al-based solutions to the platform; and
in response to receiving the authorization, provide the second one of the Al-based solutions in the platform for future execution.
Applicant’s Claim 17 merely teaches receiving an authorization to add a second one of the solutions and providing the second one of the solutions. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 17 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 18
Claim 18 recites:
18. The processing device of claim 10, wherein:
the information corresponds to a process, and
the processing device is further configured to:
determine, by the machine learning model, a modification to the process based on theinformation; and
generate a modified process based on the modification.
Applicant’s Claim 18 merely teaches unspecified information, a determination of a modification to a process, and generating a modified process. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 18 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 21
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “21. (Currently Amended) A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions executable by one or more processors to perform operations comprising: receiving…” Therefore, it is a “computer-readable storage medium” (or “product of manufacture”), which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “YES”.
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 21 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 21 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mental steps” and “mathematical steps”:
• generating, by a machine learning model executed by the computing device, a skeleton architecture of a solution to the operator (i.e., mathematical steps)
• the skeleton architecture including a plurality of machine learning model categories (mathematical steps or mental steps)
• generating,…, a pipeline that describes a plurality of components in an artificial-intelligence (AI) workflow and how the components combine in graph form, the pipeline defining a plurality of machine-learning models as individual steps of the workflow (i.e., mental steps)
• generating,... an artificial intelligence (AI)-based solution (i.e., mathematical steps)
• machine learning model (i.e., mathematical steps)
• the third machine learning model is organized in the pipeline in series with the first machine learning model (i.e., mathematical steps)
• processing the data by the AI based solution (i.e., mathematical steps)
• pipeline (i.e., mathematical steps)
Regarding pipeline, Applicant's Specification recites:
[0048] In one embodiment, the Mentalist is a virtual assistant that product owners can onboard instantly inside their own team productivity environments, such as Slack®. Mentalist 302 may provide an AI solution architecture through understanding the product needs, the relevant product success metrics, and any data resource constraints (all of which may be parts of a desired operator). On one embodiment, the Mentalist 302 may eliminate or reduce the cost and time required to hire an expensive full-time AI/ML architect. A Mentalist-designed architecture may be presented in a simple way that anyone with elementary knowledge of AI can easily understand. Mentalist 302 can also respond to AI requests in natural language like "show me how to do speech dubbing" by providing links to example architectures. Product owners can rapidly architect alternative solutions mockups before making a final decision and commit to an implementation. Mentalist 302 provides recommended vendors, cost and delivery time estimates. Given the description of the input and output in plain English of the desired outcome, the Mentalist may generate a pipeline of operators that implements the desired outcome. The Mentalist may achieve this by translating the request of its user to a schema by using technology, comparable to machine translation technology, automated chatbot generators, and similar technology.
[0049] To find the most relevant operators, the Mentalist may use natural language processing to understand what operators are needed to accomplish the outcome desired. Part of finding the most relevant operators may, in some embodiments, include finding operators from a pre- existing database of operators. The database may tag operators with certain keywords to allow the Mentalist to more easily identify an operator. The database may also include pipelines of operators, in addition to elementary operators. The Mentalist may, in some embodiments, use these pipelines or similar pipelines as part of a "best" or "suggested" configuration to facilitate a desired outcome.
• information describing a final objective to be achieved (i.e., mental steps)
• corresponding categories (i.e., mental steps)
• intermediate objective used to achieve the final objective (i.e., mental steps)
• first machine learning model (i.e., mental steps)
• second machine learning model (i.e., mental steps)
• third machine learning model (i.e., mental steps)
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A computing device
(2) A “receiving” of “information describing a final objective to be achieved”
(3) A “displaying” of a “plurality of options to access,... a plurality of corresponding AI-based solutions including the AI-based solution”
(4) A “receiving” of a “selection”
(5) A “providing” of “access to the AI-based solution via the platform”
(6) A “receiving” of “data”
(7) A “providing” of “an output of the AI-based solution”
(8) A second machine learning model is organized in the pipeline in parallel with the first machine learning model
(9) packaging, by the computing device, training code and dependencies of the pipeline as a Docker image
(10) executing, by the computing device, the Docker image in a hybrid-cloud environment
(11) automatically running training jobs in the cloud and adjusting processing resources based on performance metrics
A “computing device” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
This “computing device” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “receiving” of “information describing a final objective to be achieved” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
This “receiving” of “information describing a final objective to be achieved” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “displaying” of a “plurality of options to access,... a plurality of corresponding AI-based solutions including the AI-based solution” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (h) recites in part:
Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include:
***
vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This “displaying” of a “plurality of options to access,... a plurality of corresponding AI-based solutions including the AI-based solution” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “receiving” of a “selection” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
This “receiving” of a “selection” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “providing” of “access to the AI-based solution via the platform” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (h) recites in part:
Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include:
***
vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This “providing” of “access to the AI-based solution via the platform” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “receiving” of “data” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
This “receiving” of “data” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “providing” of “an output of the AI-based solution” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (h) recites in part:
Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include:
***
vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This “providing” of “an output of the AI-based solution” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “second machine learning model is organized in the pipeline in parallel with the first machine learning model” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”);
This “second machine learning model is organized in the pipeline in parallel with the first machine learning model” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “packaging, by the computing device, training code and dependencies of the pipeline as a Docker image” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
This “packaging, by the computing device, training code and dependencies of the pipeline as a Docker image” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “executing, by the computing device, the Docker image in a hybrid-cloud environment” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
This “executing, by the computing device, the Docker image in a hybrid-cloud environment” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “automatically running training jobs in the cloud and adjusting processing resources based on performance metrics” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
This “automatically running training jobs in the cloud and adjusting processing resources based on performance metrics” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A computing device
(2) A “receiving” of “information describing a final objective to be achieved”
(3) A “displaying” of a “plurality of options to access,... a plurality of corresponding AI-based solutions including the AI-based solution”
(4) A “receiving” of a “selection”
(5) A “providing” of “access to the AI-based solution via the platform”
(6) A “receiving” of “data”
(7) A “providing” of “an output of the AI-based solution”
(8) A second machine learning model is organized in the pipeline in parallel with the first machine learning model
(9) packaging, by the computing device, training code and dependencies of the pipeline as a Docker image
(10) executing, by the computing device, the Docker image in a hybrid-cloud environment
(11) automatically running training jobs in the cloud and adjusting processing resources based on performance metrics
A “computing device” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “receiving” of “information describing a final objective to be achieved” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “displaying” of a “plurality of options to access,... a plurality of corresponding AI-based solutions including the AI-based solution” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (h) recites in part:
Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include:
***
vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “receiving” of a “selection” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “providing” of “access to the AI-based solution via the platform” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (h) recites in part:
Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include:
***
vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “receiving” of “data” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “providing” of “an output of the AI-based solution” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (h) recites in part:
Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include:
***
vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “second machine learning model is organized in the pipeline in parallel with the first machine learning model” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”);
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “packaging, by the computing device, training code and dependencies of the pipeline as a Docker image” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “executing, by the computing device, the Docker image in a hybrid-cloud environment” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “automatically running training jobs in the cloud and adjusting processing resources based on performance metrics” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 21 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 22
Claim 22 recites:
22. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 21, wherein:
the information is in a natural language, and the operations further comprise:
generating, based on the machine learning model, a plurality of computer-recognizable commands from the natural language; and
generating an architecture of the Al-based solution based on the plurality of computer-recognizable commands.
Applicant’s Claim 22 merely teaches unspecified information in a natural language format, generating commands in a natural language format, and generating an unspecified “solution”. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 22 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 23
Claim 23 recites:
23. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 21, the operations further comprising:
generating a benchmark for the AI-based solution; and
displaying the benchmark with the option to access the AI-based solution in the platform.
Applicant’s Claim 23 merely teaches generating a benchmark for a “solution” and displaying the benchmark. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 23 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 24
Claim 24 recites:
24. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 21, the operations further comprising:
generating a plurality of Al-based solutions based on the information; and
displaying a plurality of options to access the plurality of AI-based solutions in the platform, the platform displaying one or more characteristics associated with individual Al-based solutions of the plurality of Al-based solutions.
Applicant’s Claim 24 merely teaches generating a plurality of solutions and displaying a plurality of options to access the “solutions”. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 24 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 25
Claim 25 recites:
25. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 21, the operations further comprising:
receiving a selection identifying a first one of the plurality of AI-based solutions in the platform; and
in response to receiving the selection, providing access to the first one of the Al-based solutions via the platform.
Applicant’s Claim 25 merely teaches receiving a selection identifying a first one of the plurality of solutions and providing access to the first one of the solutions. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 25 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 26
Claim 26 recites:
26. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 21, the operations further comprising:
receiving an authorization to add a second one of the AI-based solutions to the platform; and
in response to receiving the authorization, providing the second one of the AI-based solutions in the platform for future execution.
Applicant’s Claim 26 merely teaches receiving an authorization to add a second one of the solutions and providing the second one of the solutions. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 26 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 27
Claim 27 recites:
27. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 21, wherein:
the information corresponds to a process, and the operations further comprise:
determining, by the machine learning model, a modification to the process based on the information; and
generating a modified process based on the modification.
Applicant’s Claim 27 merely teaches unspecified information, a determination of a modification to a process, and generating a modified process. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 27 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 28
Claim 28 recites:
28. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
providing the output of the AI-based solution to a machine learning training component; and
generating, by the machine learning training component, a new machine learning model or a fine-tuned version of an existing machine learning model.
Applicant’s Claim 28 merely teaches finding the output of a machine learning model, calculating an error between the output and a desired result (i.e., “providing the output of the AI-based solution to a machine learning training component”), and backpropagating the error to “fine tune” or make a “new” model (i.e., “generating, by the machine learning training component, a new machine learning model or a fine-tuned version of an existing machine learning model”). It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 28 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims Not Rejected Art
Claims 1-5, 9-11, 14-18, and 21-27 are not rejected under art since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per MPEP § 2111.01, none of the references of record, whether taken alone or in combination, discloses or suggests the combination of limitations specified in independent Claim 1. Specifically, the closest prior art of Shakhovska, et al., The Sentiment Analysis Model of Services Providers’ Feedback, Electronics 2020, 9, 1922, 16 November 2020, pp. 1-15 fails to expressly teach:
Claim 1’s "...pipeline as a Docker image..."
Claim 1’s "...Docker image in a hybrid cloud..."
Further, none of the references of record, whether taken alone or in combination, discloses or suggests the combination of limitations specified in independent Claim 10. Specifically, the closest prior art of Shakhovska, et al. fails to expressly teach:
Claim 10’s "...pipeline as a Docker image..."
Claim 10’s "...Docker image in a hybrid cloud..."
Further, none of the references of record, whether taken alone or in combination, discloses or suggests the combination of limitations specified in independent Claim 21. Specifically, the closest prior art of Shakhovska, et al. fails to expressly teach:
Claim 21’s "...pipeline as a Docker image..."
Claim 21’s "...Docker image in a hybrid cloud..."
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 APR 2026have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues:
Argument 1
II. Step 1 - Statutory Category
The Examiner correctly found that Claim 1 recites a "method," Claim 10 recites a "processing device" (machine), and Claim 21 recites a "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium" (manufacture). Step 1 is satisfied for all three independent claims and their dependents.
Applicant's statement is noted.
Argument 2
At Step 2A, Prong One, the Examiner identified the following limitations as abstract "mental steps" or "mathematical steps": the skeleton architecture generation; the pipeline combining components "in graph form"; the AI-based solution generation; the ML model itself; the parallel/series pipeline organization; processing data by the AI solution; and the bare term "pipeline." Applicant respectfully submits that this characterization is erroneous.
Applicant's statement is conclusory.
The rejections stand.
Argument 3
The Examiner's Prong One analysis works by stripping each limitation of its technical context. For example, the Examiner labels Claim 1 recitation of the third machine learning model is organized in the pipeline in series with the first machine learning model " as a "mathematical step." But the parallel and series arrangement of ML models in a defined pipeline is not a mathematical concept, it is a specific graph topology governing how data flows between concrete computational components. In Enfish, LLC V. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit held that a specific structural arrangement of data elements in a computer system is not abstract merely because it can be described in logical terms. The revised MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) expressly cites Enfish as an example of claims directed to an improvement in computer capabilities that are not abstract.
In the rejection, Examiner carefully pointed out paragraphs in the Specification that explain why the clamed “pipelines” are mathematical structures. Specifically, the claimed “pipelines” are sequences of “operators”. Applicant's Specification recites:
[0048] In one embodiment, the Mentalist is a virtual assistant that product owners can onboard instantly inside their own team productivity environments, such as Slack®. Mentalist 302 may provide an AI solution architecture through understanding the product needs, the relevant product success metrics, and any data resource constraints (all of which may be parts of a desired operator). On one embodiment, the Mentalist 302 may eliminate or reduce the cost and time required to hire an expensive full-time AI/ML architect. A Mentalist-designed architecture may be presented in a simple way that anyone with elementary knowledge of AI can easily understand. Mentalist 302 can also respond to AI requests in natural language like "show me how to do speech dubbing" by providing links to example architectures. Product owners can rapidly architect alternative solutions mockups before making a final decision and commit to an implementation. Mentalist 302 provides recommended vendors, cost and delivery time estimates. Given the description of the input and output in plain English of the desired outcome, the Mentalist may generate a pipeline of operators that implements the desired outcome. The Mentalist may achieve this by translating the request of its user to a schema by using technology, comparable to machine translation technology, automated chatbot generators, and similar technology.
[0049] To find the most relevant operators, the Mentalist may use natural language processing to understand what operators are needed to accomplish the outcome desired. Part of finding the most relevant operators may, in some embodiments, include finding operators from a pre- existing database of operators. The database may tag operators with certain keywords to allow the Mentalist to more easily identify an operator. The database may also include pipelines of operators, in addition to elementary operators. The Mentalist may, in some embodiments, use these pipelines or similar pipelines as part of a "best" or "suggested" configuration to facilitate a desired outcome.
Applicant's Specification further defines “operator,” as follows:
[0044] In some embodiments, an operator is described as a function with the input format and the output format. An operator can also include attributes that further define the input and output. For example, input format can be audio and attributes that further define the input can be English and UK dialect. The pipeline in FIG. 2 may also include both a sequential and parallel path of operators. The output of one operator can be the input of one or more operators. The output of two or more operators may be combined as input to one operator.
Note that the terms “operator” and “function” are mathematical terms. The claimed “operators” may also be mental steps, as also taught by Applicant's Specification:
[0086] Though the above has been described with reference to machine learning and artificial intelligence related operators, it should be understood that operators are not confined to such fields. For example, operators may include steps in a recipe. A user may ask the Mentalist "how do I make soup?" and the Mentalist may understand from the request that it should search a recipe database. The Mentalist may then identify "operators" for this request, such as "time to cook" or "ingredients needed." The current invention is equally applicable to fields where natural language questions can be broken down into separate components, and assigned operators to facilitate a desired solution.
Sequenced or parallelized mathematical or mental functions are still mathematical or mental functions. Therefore, the claimed pipelines and operators are abstract ideas, as found in the original rejection.
Applicant's statement is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 4
Similarly, the Examiner labeled the bare term "pipeline" as "mathematical steps" without further analysis. The Desjardins Memo directly prohibits this: "Examiners and panels should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality that potentially meaningful technical limitations are dismissed without adequate explanation." Desjardins Memo at p. 4.
Applicant's Specification defines the term. As shown in the response to Argument 3, above, the scope of the term includes mathematical and mental steps.
Applicant's statement is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 5
Improvement 1 - Automated ML-Driven Skeleton Architecture Generation (Spec. 1 [0020]-[0021], 11 [0048]-[0049]; recited in independent claims 1, 10, 21).
The specification discloses that the invention enables "end-to-end orchestration, enabling & simplifying the orchestration of full AI workflows (e.g., pipelines) during both training and inference (deployment)." Spec. T [0020]-[0021]. The specification further explains that the Mentalist "may generate a pipeline of operators that implements the desired outcome" automatically by "translating the request of its user to a schema," eliminating the need for "an expensive full-time AI/ML architect." Spec. 1 [0048]. Independent claims 1, 10, and 21 recite this directly: " generating, by a machine learning model a skeleton architecture the skeleton architecture including a plurality of machine learning model categories, wherein each category corresponds to an intermediate objective This is a (sic.) improvement to how the computing system automatically designs AI workflows.
A full quote of paragraph [0048] is more illuminating on the subject:
[0048] In one embodiment, the Mentalist is a virtual assistant that product owners can onboard instantly inside their own team productivity environments, such as Slack®. Mentalist 302 may provide an AI solution architecture through understanding the product needs, the relevant product success metrics, and any data resource constraints (all of which may be parts of a desired operator). On one embodiment, the Mentalist 302 may eliminate or reduce the cost and time required to hire an expensive full-time AI/ML architect. A Mentalist-designed architecture may be presented in a simple way that anyone with elementary knowledge of AI can easily understand. Mentalist 302 can also respond to AI requests in natural language like "show me how to do speech dubbing" by providing links to example architectures. Product owners can rapidly architect alternative solutions mockups before making a final decision and commit to an implementation. Mentalist 302 provides recommended vendors, cost and delivery time estimates. Given the description of the input and output in plain English of the desired outcome, the Mentalist may generate a pipeline of operators that implements the desired outcome. The Mentalist may achieve this by translating the request of its user to a schema by using technology, comparable to machine translation technology, automated chatbot generators, and similar technology.
Note that the benefit is merely automating the human thought entailed in hiring a human AI architect. Or, as Applicant put it in the Specification: “eliminate or reduce the cost and time required to hire an expensive full-time AI/ML architect.”
Applicant's statement is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 6
Improvement 2 - Per-Component Docker Containerization Enabling Portable and Reproducible Execution (Spec. 1 [0021]; recited in independent claims 1, 10, 21).
The specification at paragraph [0021] discloses that the invention provides "an efficient way to package AI pipeline training jobs, which enables suppliers to easily package their AI pipeline training code and dependencies (e.g., as Docker images)" and that "a pipeline component is a self-contained set of user code that may be packaged as an image for performing one step in the pipeline e.g. data preprocessing, data transformation, model training." Spec. I [0021]. The amended independent claims recite this per-component disclosure precisely: "…packaging, by the computing device, training code and dependencies of each component of the pipeline as Docker images to enable portable and repeatable execution…” Each pipeline component is packaged as its own self-contained Docker image, solving the technical problem of environment inconsistency across heterogeneous computing nodes.
Firstly, the argued “self-contained set of user code” is not expressly claimed. Secondly, a “Docker image” is merely a data format like a database or a spreadsheet. A Docker image of mathematical or mental steps in a “pipeline” of such steps is merely a generic method of storing instructions.
Applicant's statement is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 7
Improvement 3 Hybrid-Cloud Execution With Automatic Performance-Metric-Driven Resource Adjustment (Spec. 1 [0022]; recited in independent claims 1, 10, 21).
The specification at paragraph [0022] discloses that the invention provides "an efficient way to train AI models in a hybrid cloud environment by providing a high-level API for training and automated tuning of Al models by efficiently running training jobs in the cloud, without needing to understand the underlying infrastructure." Spec. 1 [0022]. The amended independent claims recite this directly: " executing the Docker images in a hybrid-cloud environment wherein execution includes automatically running training jobs in the cloud and adjusting processing resources based on performance metrics " This improves how distributed computing systems manage AI training jobs-automating resource allocation across heterogeneous on-premise and cloud nodes based on real-time performance metrics.
Though Applicant clams “adjusting processing resources based on performance metrics”, processing resources may not be the computer, itself. It may be adjusting parameters that are irrelevant to the solution or parameters that aren’t even used at all in programs that are running. The scope of the claim does not specify a technology being improved. Further, the clamed “performance metrics” may not me metrics regarding the computer, itself. It may be metrics of the code that is running in the computer. It may not even be performance metrics of anything having to do with any hardware or software running in the claimed invention. Again, the scope of the claim does not specify a technology being improved.
Applicant's statement is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 8
Improvement 4 - Benchmark Generation Providing Quantitative System-Level Performance Outputs (Spec. " [0020]-[0021], [0061]; recited in dependent claims 3, 14, 23).
The specification discloses "easy experimentation -making it easy to try numerous ideas and techniques and manage various trials/experiments for hyper-parameter tuning and benchmarking." Spec. 11 [0020]-[0021]. Through the Matchmaker component, the system "may provide estimates of benchmark data, costs, and time to build" based on performance values of models. Spec. 1 [0061]. Dependent claim 3 adds " generating benchmark information based on performance metrics of the pipeline " and dependent claims 14 and 23 add " generat[ing] a benchmark for the Al-based solution" and displaying it with access options. Under Desjardins Example xiv (revised MPEP § 2106.05(a)), "improvements to computer component or system performance based upon adjustments to parameters of a machine learning model" are patent- eligible. These claims are independently patent-eligible on this basis.
Dependent Clam 3 teaches “generating benchmark information based on performance metrics of the pipeline”. The claimed pipeline is a set of mathematical and mental steps. “Performance metrics” regarding the “pipeline” may be measures of accuracy, precision, etc. regarding the steps. in other words, not pertaining to the improvement of any technology. Setting benchmarks regarding such metrics is also merely a description of the abstract mathematical or mental steps, without improvement to any technology.
Applicant's statement is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 9
Improvement 5 - Feedback Loop: ML Inference Output Driving Training Component to Generate or Fine-Tune ML Models (Spec. FIG. 2 and I [0045]; recited in dependent claim 28).
The specification's FIG. 2 and 1 [0045] discloses a feedback loop: "Certain output may then be input into a machine learning inference component ML training component may optionally receive the output of the ML inference component and generate new ML models or fine-tune existing ML models." Spec. 1 [0045], (FIG. 2 description). New dependent 28 recites this improvement directly: " ..providing the output of the AI-based solution to a machine learning training component; and generating, by the machine learning training component, a new machine learning model or a fine-tuned version of an existing machine learning model " This improvement is directly analogous to the Desjardins Example xiii (revised MPEP § 2106.05(a)): both describe specific mechanisms by which the ML system improves its own operation through data-driven feedback.
The scope of this limitation includes iterative training of a generic machine learning model. Each iteratively changed version can be looked upon as a new model or a “fine-tuned” version of the original. This is generic and not an improvement over the technology.
Applicant's statement is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 10
Even if the Examiner were to maintain that some claim limitations implicate a judicial exception at Prong One-which Applicant denies-the claims as a whole integrate that exception into a practical application under Prong Two.
Applicant's statement is conclusory.
Applicant's statement is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 11
Each step of amended Claim 1, evaluated in sequence, maps to a specification-disclosed improvement:
"…receiving, by a computing device, information describing a final objective to be achieved…" The Examiner dismissed this as generic data receipt constituting "insignificant extra-solution activity." This dismissal evaluates the limitation in isolation, contrary to Desjardins. Read as the first step of the ordered combination, this limitation defines the input specification, the natural-language objective, that drives the ML model's automated architectural decomposition in all subsequent steps.
Individually and collectively with the other limitations, the receipt of descriptive data (i.e., “receiving, by a computing device, information describing a final objective…”) is claimed generically and when combined with the abstract ideas of the clamed invention adds nothing “significantly more” than the original abstract idea.
Applicant's statement is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 12
"…generating, by a machine learning model a skeleton architecture the skeleton architecture including a plurality of machine learning model categories, wherein each category corresponds to an intermediate objective used to achieve the final objective…"
This reflects Improvement 1 (Spec. " [0020]-[0021], [0048]-[0049]). The Examiner labeled this "mathematical steps." But this limitation recites a specific automated technical process: a ML model decomposes a user objective into a structured skeleton of ML model categories, each tied to a defined intermediate computational objective-the exact Mentalist functionality disclosed at Spec. 1 [0048]. Under Desjardins Example xiii (revised MPEP § 2106.05(a)), an improved way of operating a machine learning model to accomplish a technical function is patent-eligible.
Within the scope of this clause of the claim is unspecified supervised (i.e., labeled with categories) training data, which judging from the scope of the claim, may be mathematical data for the mathematical steps/operators. Unspecified training data do not improve any technology in the clam.
Applicant's statement is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 13
"…generating a pipeline that describes a plurality of components in an artificial-intelligence (AI) workflow and how the components combine in graph form, the pipeline defining a plurality of machine-learning models as individual steps of the workflow…"
This reflects Improvements 1 and 2 (Spec. 11 [0020]-[0021]). The Examiner characterized the graph-form pipeline as "mental steps." The specification at paragraph [0020]-[0021] discloses that "a pipeline describes all of the components in an AI workflow and how they combine in graph form," and that each pipeline component "may be packaged as an image for performing one step in the pipeline." The graph form is not a mental step, it is the specific data structure encoding how AI workflow components interconnect, and serves as the structural basis for the per-component Docker containerization in the next step. Under Enfish, a specific logical structure improving how a computer system organizes and processes information is not abstract. 822 F.3d at 1337.
The graph of operators forming a “pipeline” is presented in graph form because it makes it easier for humans to grasp. The actual visual graph is not what is used by the computer to follow the pipeline. Therefore, it is mental steps.
Applicant's statement is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 14
"…packaging, by the computing device, training code and dependencies of each component of the pipeline as Docker images to enable portable and repeatable execution…" (As Amended)
This reflects Improvement 2 (Spec. " [0020]-[0021]). This amended limitation recites "training code and dependencies of each component of the pipeline as Docker images" to reflect the specification's per-component packaging disclosure. The specification states: "a pipeline component is a self-contained set of user code that may be packaged as an image for performing one step in the pipeline e.g. data preprocessing, data transformation, model training." Spec. T [0021]. The Examiner dismissed the Docker packaging step as a "broad term" constituting "insignificant extra-solution activity" under MPEP § 2106.05(f). This dismissal is not proper in view of the Desjardins Memo's direction that examiners "should not dismiss additional elements as mere 'generic computer components' without considering whether such elements confer a technological improvement to a technical problem." Desjardins Memo at p. 4. Per-component Docker containerization is not a generic computer function, it is a specific technical mechanism that solves the problem of environment inconsistency across heterogeneous computing nodes, enabling portable and repeatable AI execution that prior art could not achieve.
A “Docker image” is merely a data format like a database or a spreadsheet. A Docker image of mathematical or mental steps in a “pipeline” of such steps is merely a generic method of storing instructions.
Applicant's statement is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 15
"…executing, by the computing device, the Docker images in a hybrid-cloud environment.. wherein execution includes automatically running training jobs in the cloud and adjusting processing resources based on performance metrics…"
This reflects Improvement 3 (Spec. I [0022]). The Examiner dismissed both the hybrid- cloud execution and automatic resource adjustment sub-limitations separately, each time concluding they represent "insignificant extra-solution activity." This serial element-by-element dismissal is the precise error Desjardins prohibits. Read as part of the ordered combination, this step specifies how the computing system executes the per-component Docker images, not on a generic computer, but in a hybrid-cloud environment with automatic, performance-metric-driven resource adjustment. The specification at paragraph [0022] discloses this exact mechanism: "efficiently running training jobs in the cloud, without needing to understand the underlying infrastructure" with "automated tuning of AI models." Spec. I [0022]. This is a (sic.) improvement to distributed computing system performance.
Execution of an executable by a computing device is not an improvement of a technology…even if stored as a generic docker image.
Applicant's statement is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 16
"…generating an Al-based solution comprising at least a first machine learning model, a second machine learning model, and a third machine learning model organized in a pipeline in which: the second machine learning model is organized in the pipeline in parallel with the first machine learning model; and the third machine learning model is organized in the pipeline in series with the first machine learning model…"
This reflects Improvement 1 (Spec. 1 [0045], FIG. 2 description). The Examiner characterized the parallel model arrangement as analogous to "performing repetitive calculations" under MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). The parallel and series topology is not a mathematical calculation, it is a specific structural arrangement of at least three distinct ML model components defining how data flows through the AI pipeline. The specification confirms this in Spec 1 [0045] and FIG. 2 description: "the pipeline. may also include both a sequential and parallel path of operators. The output of one operator can be the input of one or more operators. The output of two or more operators may be combined as input to one operator." Spec. (1 [0045], FIG. 2 description). This is a defined graph structure governing multi-model AI execution, analogous to the specific hardware memory configuration found patent-eligible in Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259-60 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (cited in revised MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)).
When these six ordered steps are read together as an ordered combination, as Desjardins and the revised MPEP § 2106.05(a) require, the amended 1, 10, and 21 recite a complete, integrated technical system: a computing device uses a ML model to automatically decompose a natural-language objective into a skeleton architecture (Improvement 1); constructs a graph- structured pipeline with defined parallel/series model relationships (Improvements 1 and 2); packages each component of the pipeline as its own Docker image for portable, reproducible execution (Improvement 2) executes those Docker images in a hybrid-cloud environment with automatic resource scaling (Improvement 3); and delivers a multi-model Al solution whose output feeds back into a training component to generate new or refined models (Improvement 5). This is not an instruction to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer, it is a specific technical process improving how AI workflows are designed, packaged, and executed in distributed computing environments.
The clamed “pipelines” are mathematical structures. Specifically, the claimed “pipelines” are sequences of “operators”. Applicant's Specification recites:
[0048] In one embodiment, the Mentalist is a virtual assistant that product owners can onboard instantly inside their own team productivity environments, such as Slack®. Mentalist 302 may provide an AI solution architecture through understanding the product needs, the relevant product success metrics, and any data resource constraints (all of which may be parts of a desired operator). On one embodiment, the Mentalist 302 may eliminate or reduce the cost and time required to hire an expensive full-time AI/ML architect. A Mentalist-designed architecture may be presented in a simple way that anyone with elementary knowledge of AI can easily understand. Mentalist 302 can also respond to AI requests in natural language like "show me how to do speech dubbing" by providing links to example architectures. Product owners can rapidly architect alternative solutions mockups before making a final decision and commit to an implementation. Mentalist 302 provides recommended vendors, cost and delivery time estimates. Given the description of the input and output in plain English of the desired outcome, the Mentalist may generate a pipeline of operators that implements the desired outcome. The Mentalist may achieve this by translating the request of its user to a schema by using technology, comparable to machine translation technology, automated chatbot generators, and similar technology.
[0049] To find the most relevant operators, the Mentalist may use natural language processing to understand what operators are needed to accomplish the outcome desired. Part of finding the most relevant operators may, in some embodiments, include finding operators from a pre- existing database of operators. The database may tag operators with certain keywords to allow the Mentalist to more easily identify an operator. The database may also include pipelines of operators, in addition to elementary operators. The Mentalist may, in some embodiments, use these pipelines or similar pipelines as part of a "best" or "suggested" configuration to facilitate a desired outcome.
Applicant's Specification further defines “operator,” as follows:
[0044] In some embodiments, an operator is described as a function with the input format and the output format. An operator can also include attributes that further define the input and output. For example, input format can be audio and attributes that further define the input can be English and UK dialect. The pipeline in FIG. 2 may also include both a sequential and parallel path of operators. The output of one operator can be the input of one or more operators. The output of two or more operators may be combined as input to one operator.
Note that the terms “operator” and “function” are mathematical terms. The claimed “operators” may also be mental steps, as also taught by Applicant's Specification:
[0086] Though the above has been described with reference to machine learning and artificial intelligence related operators, it should be understood that operators are not confined to such fields. For example, operators may include steps in a recipe. A user may ask the Mentalist "how do I make soup?" and the Mentalist may understand from the request that it should search a recipe database. The Mentalist may then identify "operators" for this request, such as "time to cook" or "ingredients needed." The current invention is equally applicable to fields where natural language questions can be broken down into separate components, and assigned operators to facilitate a desired solution.
Sequenced or parallelized mathematical or mental functions are still mathematical or mental functions. Therefore, the claimed pipelines and operators are abstract ideas, as found in the original rejection.
Applicant's statement is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 17
C. The Examiner' Element-by-Element Analysis Is Incorrect Under Desjardins
The Examiner identified eleven "additional elements" in 1 and dismissed each individually as "insignificant extra-solution activity." The Examiner's conclusion-"no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application", was reached by process of individual elimination, never by combination analysis. This is reversible legal error under Desjardins in three specific respects:
First, the Desjardins Memo revised MPEP § 2106.05(a) to require evaluation "as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps" and warns against "oversimplifying the claims." Evaluating eleven elements individually, concluding the combination fails without analyzing the combination itself, violates this requirement.
Examiner did consider the combination of elements and found that the combinations still do not add anything to the abstract ideas. Applicant has not argued any particular combination that add anything to the abstract ideas.
Applicant's statement is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 18
Second, the Desjardins Memo revised MPEP § 2106.05(a) to direct that examiners "should not dismiss additional elements as mere 'generic computer components' without considering whether such elements confer a technological improvement to a technical problem." The Examiner dismissed per-component Docker packaging, hybrid-cloud execution, and automatic resource adjustment as "insignificant extra-solution activity" without considering their combined technological contribution to solving the concrete problems of AI workflow portability, distributed execution management, and resource optimization.
Applicant has not defined what a “resource” is or even whether it is a resource within the invention. Docker packaging is simply a data format and hybrid cloud execution is merely execution in a possibly networked environment. Execution of information in a docker image format on a networked computer does not add anything to the underlying abstract ideas in the clamed invention.
Applicant's statement is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 19
Third, under DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (cited in revised MPEP § 2106.05(f)), claims specifying how computing interactions are "manipulated to yield a desired result" overriding the "routine and conventional sequence of events" are not merely applying an abstract idea. The per- component Docker packaging and hybrid-cloud execution with automatic resource adjustment override the prior art's conventional, manual approach to AI pipeline deployment-automating what previously required expert human intervention and producing concrete improvements in portability, reproducibility, and distributed computing efficiency.
Applicant admits that the claimed invention automates a manual approach performed by humans (i.e., mental steps).
Applicant's statement is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 20
A. Claims 2, 11, and 22 - Natural Language to Computer-Recognizable Command Conversion and Docker Packaging
Claims 2, 11, and 22 recite that the information is in natural language, and that the method/device/medium further generates computer-recognizable commands from the natural language, generates an architecture of the AI-based solution based on those commands, and (in Claim 2) packages the Al-based solution including its training code and dependencies as a Docker image deployable in the hybrid-cloud environment.
These limitations reflect Improvement 1 (Spec. T [0048]) and Improvement 2 (Spec. 1 [0021]). The specification at paragraph [0048] discloses that the Mentalist "may achieve this by translating the request of its user to a schema by using technology, comparable to machine translation technology." This is a specific computational transformation, not an abstract mental step. Under McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016), claims that "specif[y] rules" governing a specific computer-implemented transformation of data are directed to an improvement in computer-related technology. The Docker packaging limitation in 2 additionally reflects Improvement 2 (Spec. 1 [0021]), extending the per-component containerization benefit to the solution architecture generated from natural language commands. 2, 11, and 22 are independently patent-eligible for these reasons.
A machine learning system is simply used to recognize the natural language input. An assertion of “applying it” is insufficient to add something significantly more.
Docker packaging is simply a data format and hybrid cloud execution is merely execution in a possibly networked environment. Execution of information in a docker image format on a networked computer does not add anything to the underlying abstract ideas in the clamed invention.
Applicant's statement is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 21
B. Claims 3 and 23 - Multi-Model Pipeline Architecture With Combined Outputs and Benchmark Generation
Claim 3 recites a specific pipeline architecture in which the third and fourth ML model outputs are combined and provided as input to a fifth ML model, and the pipeline runs in the hybrid-cloud environment generating benchmark information based on performance metrics. Claim 23 adds generating and displaying a benchmark with the AI-based solution access option.
Claim 3 reflects Improvements 1 and 4 (Spec. FIG. 2 description; Spec. " [0021] and - [0045], [0061]). The specification's FIG. 2 description discloses that "the output of two or more operators may be combined as input to one operator," directly supporting the combined-output- to-fifth-model architecture. The benchmark generation reflects the specification's disclosure of "hyper-parameter tuning and benchmarking" (Spec. 1 [0021]) and the Matchmaker's generation of "benchmark data, costs, and time to build" (Spec. ' [0061]). These are computed, quantitative system-level performance metrics generated from actual hybrid-cloud execution. Under Desjardins Example xiv (revised MPEP § 2106.05(a)), such improvements to ML system performance are patent-eligible. 3 and 23 are independently patent-eligible on this basis.
Operators and pipelines of operators are abstract mathematical/mental steps that do not improve a technology. Computed benchmarks and metrics do not change or improve a technology.
Applicant's statement is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 22
C. Claim 28 (New) - Feedback Loop: AI-Based Solution Output Driving ML Training Component
New Claim 28 adds that the output of the Al-based solution is provided to a machine learning training component, which generates a new machine learning model or a fine-tuned version of an existing machine learning model. This reflects Improvement 5 (Spec. T [0045] and FIG. 2 description).
The specification's 1 [0045] and FIG. 2 description discloses: "Certain output may then be input into a machine learning inference component. ML training component may optionally receive the output of the ML inference component and generate new ML models or fine-tune existing ML models." Claim 28 tracks this disclosure directly. The feedback loop is not an abstract concept, it is a specific technical mechanism by which the computing system uses the results of one AI pipeline execution to autonomously improve the ML models used in future executions. This is directly analogous to Desjardins Example xiii (revised MPEP § 2106.05(a)): "an improved way of training a machine learning model" that improves how the ML system itself operates. 28 is independently patent-eligible on this basis.
The scope of this limitation includes iterative training of a generic machine learning model. Each iteratively changed version can be looked upon as a new model or a “fine-tuned” version of the original. This is generic and not an improvement over the technology.
Applicant's statement is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 23
D. Claim 5 - Distributed Concurrent Execution Across Multiple Computing Devices
Claim 5 recites that the pipeline describes ML model components in an Al workflow and how they combine in graph form, and that the AI workflow is executed in a distributed computing environment allowing concurrent execution of components across multiple computing devices.
This reflects Improvement 3 (Spec. IT [0020]-[0022], FIGS. 1A-1C). The specification describes a distributed architecture with servers, cloud platforms, and client devices operating across networks. Concurrent distributed execution is a concrete improvement to computing system performance-reducing latency and improving throughput by parallelizing AI workflow component execution across distributed hardware nodes-analogous to the network monitoring improvement found patent-eligible in SRI Int'l, Inc. V. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (cited in revised MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)).
“Parallelizing AI workflow component execution” is implemented by generic networking and adds nothing more to the abstract ideas in the claimed invention.
Applicant's statement is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 24
E. Claim 9 - ML-Driven Process Modification With Measurable Benchmark Improvements in Latency or Accuracy
Claim 9 recites that where the information corresponds to a process, the ML model determines a modification to the process, generates a modified process, and executes the modified process in the hybrid-cloud environment to generate benchmark data indicating improvements in latency or accuracy relative to a previous workflow.
This reflects Improvements 3 and 4 (Spec. T [0021], FIG. 5A description). The specification discloses that "processing logic may further determine, by a machine learning model, a modification to the process based on the information and generate a modified process based on the modification." Spec. (FIG. 5A description). Claim 9 recites execution of the modified process in the hybrid-cloud environment and generation of benchmark data indicating measurable improvements in latency or accuracy relative to a previous workflow, a quantified, system-level performance improvement generated from actual hybrid-cloud execution. The Desjardins ARP credited exactly this type of improvement, "preservation of performance attributes associated with earlier tasks" and "reduced system complexity"-as technological improvements making claims patent-eligible. 9 is independently patent-eligible on this basis. 18 and 27 recite the process-modification scope (without the benchmark/latency limitation of 9) for the device and CRM statutory classes respectively, and are patent-eligible for the same reasons as 9 and for all arguments applicable to independent 10 and 21.
“Generating a modified process…”, as clamed, is generic and standard in any machine learning system. That’s what happens when it learns; it is modified.
In Applicant's claimed “…executing the modified process in the hybrid-cloud environment to generate benchmark data indicating improvements in latency or accuracy relative to a previous workflow…” the process that is positively recited is a generic execution of the process. The generation of benchmark data is not positively recited and it is simply the reason for the execution step.
Applicant's statement is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 25
F. Claims 14 and 23 - Benchmark Display; 15, 16, 17, 24, 25, 26 - Multiple AI Solution Display, Selection, and Authorization
Claims 14 and 23 add generating a benchmark for the AI-based solution and displaying it with an option to access the solution in the platform. Claims 15 and 24 add generating and displaying a plurality of AI-based solutions with associated characteristics. Claim 16 and 25 add receiving a selection of one AI-based solution and providing access. Claims 17and 26 add receiving authorization to add an AI-based solution to the platform for future execution.
These limitations reflect Improvement 4 (Spec. 1 [0061]) and the Matchmaker component's functionality. The specification at paragraph [0061] discloses that the Matchmaker "presents a recommended, well catalogued, bill of material that implements the blueprint (e.g., architecture) of the solution and matches the budget and metrics to any specified requirements. It includes an easy to understand description for each AI asset need with examples and a fair and single-number benchmark with explanation." The benchmark display in Claims 14 and 23 is tied to system-level performance outputs generated from hybrid-cloud pipeline execution, not an abstract display of information, but computed, quantitative metrics enabling users to select among technically optimized AI solutions. The selection and authorization limitations complete the end-to-end workflow from objective specification through AI pipeline selection, access, and platform integration, further integrating any judicial exception into the practical application of a fully automated, benchmark-driven AI solution marketplace.
This claim merely claims the generation and display of a numerical “benchmark.” For instance, claim 14 recites:
14. (Currently Amended) The processing device of claim 10, the processing device further configured to:
generate a benchmark for the AI-based solution; and
display the benchmark with an option to access the AI-based solution in the marketplace platform.
The generation and display of a number doesn’t improve a technology.
Applicant's statement is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 26
VI. Step 2B - The Claims Recite Significantly More Than Any Abstract Idea
Should the Examiner maintain the rejection through Step 2A, which Applicant submits cannot be supported, the claims independently satisfy Step 2B by reciting a non-conventional, non-routine combination of technical elements.
Under BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT& Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cited in revised MPEP § 2106.05(f)), a non-conventional arrangement of known components may provide the inventive concept required by Step 2B. The specific combination here of: (1) ML-driven skeleton architecture generation with categorized intermediate objectives (Spec. IT [0021], [0048]-[0049]); (2) graph-structured pipeline construction with defined parallel/series ML model topology (Spec. FIG. 2 description); (3) per-component Docker containerization of training code and dependencies as self-contained images (Spec. 1 [0021]); (4) hybrid-cloud execution with automatic, performance-metric-driven resource adjustment (Spec. I [0022]); and (5) feedback loop providing AI-based solution output to a ML training component to generate new or fine-tuned models (Spec. I [0045] FIG. 2 description)-is not a routine or conventional arrangement. The specification's disclosure at paragraph [0021] discloses that this combination provides improvements in portability, scalability, and orchestration not achieved by prior art systems is intrinsic evidence of non-conventionality.
In the argument, (4) is merely a networked computer; the combination of (4) with (5) is simply a machine learning system training on the networked computer; adding (1) and (2) to (4) and (5) simply places a set of mathematical /mental steps on a networked computer; the addition of (3) to all this provides a format for the mathematical/mental steps that are on the networked computer. None of this adds significantly more to the abstract ideas in the claims.
Applicant's statement is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 27
Moreover, under Berkheimer V. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018), a finding that additional elements are "well-understood, routine, and conventional" requires a factual basis. The Office Action provides none. The Examiner did not cite any prior art, and didn't provide any statement of what was conventional in the art of distributed AI systems. The Examiner's Step 2B analysis consists solely of reciting the Alice standard and concluding that "the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself." That is a legal conclusion, not a factual finding, and it does not satisfy the Berkheimer standard.
The amended claims, now reciting per-component Docker containerization (each component of the pipeline as Docker images, Spec. 1 [0021]) and supported by Claim 28 reciting the ML feedback loop (Spec. 1 [0045], FIG. 2 description)-properly evaluated as an ordered combination under the Desjardins-revised MPEP §§ 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(a), are not directed to an abstract idea at Step 2A Prong One. The claims are directed to five improvements in computer and AI technology: (1) automated ML pipeline orchestration (Spec. " [0021], [0048]- [0049]); (2) per-component Docker containerization for portable and reproducible execution (Spec. 1 [0021]); (3) hybrid-cloud execution with automatic resource scaling (Spec. 1 [0022]); (4) benchmark generation providing quantitative system-level performance outputs (Spec. 11 [0021], [0061]); and (5) a feedback loop by which AI-based solution output drives ML training to generate new or fine-tuned models (Spec. 1 [0045], FIG. 2 description). In the alternative, the claims integrate any judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two. The Examiner's element-by-element dismissal of eleven individually identified limitations, without once analyzing their ordered combination, is the precise analytical error that Ex Parte Desjardins was designated precedential to correct.
Withdrawal of the § 101 rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 9-11, 14-18, 21-28 is respectfully requested. Applicant believes that, upon entry of the pending amendments and consideration of the foregoing remarks, all pending claims are in condition for allowance.
Applicant's argument applies to the “receiving” parts of the rejection. Examiner cited M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) in this issue. It recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Applicant's statement is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
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 inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wilbert L. Starks, Jr., who may be reached Monday through Friday, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. EST. or via telephone at (571) 272-3691 or email: Wilbert.Starks@uspto.gov.
If you need to send an Official facsimile transmission, please send it to (571) 273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful the Examiner’s Supervisor (SPE), Kakali Chaki, may be reached at (571) 272-3719.
Hand-delivered responses should be delivered to the Receptionist @ (Customer Service Window Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22313), located on the first floor of the south side of the Randolph Building.
Finally, information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Moreover, status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) toll-free @ 1-866-217-9197.
/WILBERT L STARKS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2122
WLS
09 JUL 2026
Prosecution Insights