Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “thereby improving efficiency and computing performance” in claims 1, 8, and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thereby improving efficiency and computing performance” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what the efficiency and computing performance are improved relative to, and as to what metric defines the improvement.
The term “improve upon future requests” in claims 1, 8, and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “improve upon future requests” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what the future requests are improved relative to, and as to what metric defines the improvement.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 for dependence on claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively.
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of examination, “thereby improving efficiency and computing performance” will be interpreted as “returning input features of the cached request as opposed to processing the inference request”. Further, “improve upon future requests” will be interpreted as “sending the input features of the inference request as an asynchronous machine learning model request such that the input features of the inference request are added to a list of cached results in response to the input features of the inference request not being within the allowable threshold distance from the input features of the cached request”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1,
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a computer implemented method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“implementing an algorithm to perform unsupervised clustering to: find K closest clusters of matches, where K ≥ 1”
“select J closest clusters that have a distance smaller than a threshold value, where J ≤ K”
“use a most frequent label from each cluster as an estimated inference result of the cluster”
“combine the estimated inference results in response to J > 1”
“determining whether to wait a period of time for a machine learning model inference system to process a new request and return requests based on implementing the unsupervised clustering algorithm”
“determining if input features of the inference request are within an allowable threshold distance from input features of a cached request using the unsupervised clustering algorithm”
“determining whether a request input of the inference request matches at least one collected input in the set of collected inputs”
“determining that there is a match between the request input and at least one collected input in the set of collected inputs in response to a distance of J closest collected inputs of K closest collected inputs to the request input being less than a threshold value, where K ≥ 1, and where 0 ≤ J ≤ K”
“estimating or generating an inference result of the inference request from one or more inference results associated with one or more J matching collected inputs in response to a match between the request input and the at least one collected input in the set of collected inputs thereby reducing a time required to obtain inference results regardless of a structure of the one or more machine learning models”
“dynamically changing the threshold value based on a difference between the estimated inference result and the asynchronously obtained inference result”
“utilizing the changed threshold value for determining an inference result of a further received inference request”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations:
“A computer implemented method for obtaining inference results”
“collecting inference results of one or more machine learning models and a set of collected inputs associated with the collected inference results”
“asynchronously obtaining an inference result of the request input from a machine learning model of the one or more machine learning models”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations:
“storing the collected inference results of the one or more machine learning models and the set of collected inputs in a cache”
“receiving an inference request”
“provide the estimated inference result as the inference result of the received inference request in response to J = 1”
“returning the input features of the cached request in response to the input features of the inference request being within the allowable threshold distance from the input features of the cached request, wherein, by using the unsupervised clustering algorithm as opposed to a direct cache implementation, input features of the cached request are returned as opposed to processing the inference request thereby improving efficiency and computing performance”
“sending the input features of the inference request as an asynchronous machine learning model request such that the input features of the inference request are added to a list of cached results in order to improve upon future requests in response to the input features of the inference request not being within the allowable threshold distance from the input features of the cached request”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply” and “insignificant extra-solution activity”. Specifically, the receiving/providing/returning limitations recite the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving and transmitting data over a network. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network). Additionally, the storing/sending limitations recite the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Mere instructions to apply and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2,
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a computer implemented method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“updating the set of collected inputs by adding an obtained inference result and the request input to the set of collected inputs, wherein the set of collected inputs includes associated inference results”
“using the updated set of collected inputs and associated inference results for a subsequent received inference request”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3,
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a computer implemented method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 2.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein the obtained inference result is obtained by a dedicated asynchronous task processor which is distinct from a processor performing an inference assessment”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4,
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a computer implemented method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein responsive to the request input not matching at least one collected input in the set of collected inputs, adding the obtained inference result from the machine learning model to a set of collected inference results in association with the request input”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5,
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a computer implemented method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“obtaining the inference result of the inference request from the machine learning model by providing the request input of the inference request to the machine learning model in response to not having a match between the request input and a collected input in the set of collected inputs”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6,
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a computer implemented method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“identify the K closest collected inputs of the request input using the provided algorithm”
“responsive to determining that there is no matching, where J ≤ K, determining the inference result of the request input comprises selecting one of the J collected inference results associated with the J closest collected inputs or combining the J collected inference results”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“providing an algorithm, the algorithm being configured to receive as input the set of collected inputs and the received input request”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7,
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a computer implemented method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“estimating or generating the inference result of the inference request from a combination of the one or more inference results associated with the one or more J matching collected inputs, wherein the combination of the one or more inference results is an average or weighted sum of the one or more inference results associated with the one or more J matching collected inputs”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8,
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a computer program product for obtaining inference results, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“implementing an algorithm to perform unsupervised clustering to: find K closest clusters of matches, where K ≥ 1”
“select J closest clusters that have a distance smaller than a threshold value, where J ≤ K”
“use a most frequent label from each cluster as an estimated inference result of the cluster”
“combine the estimated inference results in response to J > 1”
“determining whether to wait a period of time for a machine learning model inference system to process a new request and return requests based on implementing the unsupervised clustering algorithm”
“determining if input features of the inference request are within an allowable threshold distance from input features of a cached request using the unsupervised clustering algorithm”
“determining whether a request input of the inference request matches at least one collected input in the set of collected inputs”
“determining that there is a match between the request input and at least one collected input in the set of collected inputs in response to a distance of J closest collected inputs of K closest collected inputs to the request input being less than a threshold value, where K ≥ 1, and where 0 ≤ J ≤ K”
“estimating or generating an inference result of the inference request from one or more inference results associated with one or more J matching collected inputs in response to a match between the request input and the at least one collected input in the set of collected inputs thereby reducing a time required to obtain inference results regardless of a structure of the one or more machine learning models”
“dynamically changing the threshold value based on a difference between the estimated inference result and the asynchronously obtained inference result”
“utilizing the changed threshold value for determining an inference result of a further received inference request”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations:
“A computer program product for obtaining inference results, the computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage mediums having program code embodied therewith, the program code comprising programming instructions”
“collecting inference results of one or more machine learning models and a set of collected inputs associated with the collected inference results”
“asynchronously obtaining an inference result of the request input from a machine learning model of the one or more machine learning models”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations:
“storing the collected inference results of the one or more machine learning models and the set of collected inputs in a cache”
“receiving an inference request”
“provide the estimated inference result as the inference result of the received inference request in response to J = 1”
“returning the input features of the cached request in response to the input features of the inference request being within the allowable threshold distance from the input features of the cached request, wherein, by using the unsupervised clustering algorithm as opposed to a direct cache implementation, input features of the cached request are returned as opposed to processing the inference request thereby improving efficiency and computing performance”
“sending the input features of the inference request as an asynchronous machine learning model request such that the input features of the inference request are added to a list of cached results in order to improve upon future requests in response to the input features of the inference request not being within the allowable threshold distance from the input features of the cached request”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply” and “insignificant extra-solution activity”. Specifically, the receiving/providing/returning limitations recite the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving and transmitting data over a network. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network). Additionally, the storing/sending limitations recite the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Mere instructions to apply and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9,
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a computer program product for obtaining inference results, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“updating the set of collected inputs by adding an obtained inference result and the request input to the set of collected inputs, wherein the set of collected inputs includes associated inference results”
“using the updated set of collected inputs and associated inference results for a subsequent received inference request”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 8.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 8.
Regarding Claim 10,
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a computer program product for obtaining inference results, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 9.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein the obtained inference result is obtained by a dedicated asynchronous task processor which is distinct from a processor performing an inference assessment”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 11,
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a computer program product for obtaining inference results, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein responsive to the request input not matching at least one collected input in the set of collected inputs, adding the obtained inference result from the machine learning model to a set of collected inference results in association with the request input”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 9.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 9.
Regarding Claim 12,
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a computer program product for obtaining inference results, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 8.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“obtaining the inference result of the inference request from the machine learning model by providing the request input of the inference request to the machine learning model in response to not having a match between the request input and a collected input in the set of collected inputs”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 13,
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a computer program product for obtaining inference results, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“identify the K closest collected inputs of the request input using the provided algorithm”
“responsive to a distance of J closest collected inputs of the identified K closest collected inputs to the request input is less than a threshold value, determining that there is a match between the request input and at least one collected input in the set of collected inputs”
“responsive to determining that there is no matching, where J ≤ K, determining the inference result of the request input comprises selecting one of the J collected inference results associated with the J closest collected inputs or combining the J collected inference results”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“providing an algorithm, the algorithm being configured to receive as input the set of collected inputs and the received input request”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 14,
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a computer program product for obtaining inference results, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“estimating or generating the inference result of the inference request from a combination of the one or more inference results associated with the one or more J matching collected inputs, wherein the combination of the one or more inference results is an average or weighted sum of the one or more inference results associated with the one or more J matching collected inputs”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 8.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 8.
Regarding Claim 15,
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a system comprising memory and a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“implementing an algorithm to perform unsupervised clustering to: find K closest clusters of matches, where K ≥ 1”
“select J closest clusters that have a distance smaller than a threshold value, where J ≤ K”
“use a most frequent label from each cluster as an estimated inference result of the cluster”
“combine the estimated inference results in response to J > 1”
“determining whether to wait a period of time for a machine learning model inference system to process a new request and return requests based on implementing the unsupervised clustering algorithm”
“determining if input features of the inference request are within an allowable threshold distance from input features of a cached request using the unsupervised clustering algorithm”
“determining whether a request input of the inference request matches at least one collected input in the set of collected inputs”
“determining that there is a match between the request input and at least one collected input in the set of collected inputs in response to a distance of J closest collected inputs of K closest collected inputs to the request input being less than a threshold value, where K ≥ 1, and where 0 ≤ J ≤ K”
“estimating or generating an inference result of the inference request from one or more inference results associated with one or more J matching collected inputs in response to a match between the request input and the at least one collected input in the set of collected inputs thereby reducing a time required to obtain inference results regardless of a structure of the one or more machine learning models”
“dynamically changing the threshold value based on a difference between the estimated inference result and the asynchronously obtained inference result”
“utilizing the changed threshold value for determining an inference result of a further received inference request”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations:
“A system, comprising: a memory for storing a computer program for obtaining inference results; and a processor connected to said memory, wherein said processor is configured to execute program instructions of the computer program”
“collecting inference results of one or more machine learning models and a set of collected inputs associated with the collected inference results”
“asynchronously obtaining an inference result of the request input from a machine learning model of the one or more machine learning models”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations:
“storing the collected inference results of the one or more machine learning models and the set of collected inputs in a cache”
“receiving an inference request”
“provide the estimated inference result as the inference result of the received inference request in response to J = 1”
“returning the input features of the cached request in response to the input features of the inference request being within the allowable threshold distance from the input features of the cached request, wherein, by using the unsupervised clustering algorithm as opposed to a direct cache implementation, input features of the cached request are returned as opposed to processing the inference request thereby improving efficiency and computing performance”
“sending the input features of the inference request as an asynchronous machine learning model request such that the input features of the inference request are added to a list of cached results in order to improve upon future requests in response to the input features of the inference request not being within the allowable threshold distance from the input features of the cached request”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply” and “insignificant extra-solution activity”. Specifically, the receiving/providing/returning limitations recite the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving and transmitting data over a network. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network). Additionally, the storing/sending limitations recite the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Mere instructions to apply and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 16,
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a system comprising memory and a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“updating the set of collected inputs by adding an obtained inference result and the request input to the set of collected inputs, wherein the set of collected inputs includes associated inference results”
“using the updated set of collected inputs and associated inference results for a subsequent received inference request”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 15.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 15.
Regarding Claim 17,
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to a system comprising memory and a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 16.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein the obtained inference result is obtained by a dedicated asynchronous task processor which is distinct from a processor performing an inference assessment”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 18,
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to a system comprising memory and a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein responsive to the request input not matching at least one collected input in the set of collected inputs, adding the obtained inference result from the machine learning model to a set of collected inference results in association with the request input”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 15.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 15.
Regarding Claim 19,
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to a system comprising memory and a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 15.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“obtaining the inference result of the inference request from the machine learning model by providing the request input of the inference request to the machine learning model in response to not having a match between the request input and a collected input in the set of collected inputs”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 20,
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 20 is directed to a system comprising memory and a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“identify K closest collected inputs of the request input using the provided algorithm”
“responsive to a distance of J closest collected inputs of the identified K closest collected inputs to the request input is less than a threshold value, determining that there is a match between the request input and at least one collected input in the set of collected inputs”
“responsive to determining that there is no matching, where J ≤ K, determining the inference result of the request input comprises selecting one of the J collected inference results associated with the J closest collected inputs or combining the J collected inference results”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“providing an algorithm, the algorithm being configured to receive as input the set of collected inputs and the received input request”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. The claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previous rejection applied under 35 U.S.C. 112b in the Non-Final Rejection, dated 16 July 2025, Applicant’s amendments overcome the rejection. However, Applicant’s amendments introduces a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112b.
Regarding the rejection applied under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant firstly asserts the features of amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15 cannot practically be performed in the human mind, including using pen and paper. (“Remarks”, Pages 14-17). Applicant further asserts that the claim limitations of amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15 instead correspond to “additional elements” (“Remarks”, Page 17).
However, as discussed above in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1, the amended independent claims recite a plurality of mental processes. For example, the limitations “find K closest clusters of matches…” and “select J closest clusters that have a distance smaller than a threshold value…” can practically be performed mentally by performing the mental task of comparing and selecting data items based on a determined threshold value. Therefore, the claims at least recite an abstract idea (i.e., a mental process).
Applicant further asserts that such additional elements provide an improvement to a technology or field and integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application (“Remarks”, Page 17). Applicant specifically asserts that the combination of elements in amended independent claims 1, 8 and 15 reflect an improvement to another technology or technical field (“Remarks”, Pages 17-18). Applicant further asserts that the claimed invention, as recited in claims 1, 8, and 15 improves the technology or technical field of computer technology, such as improving the performance of a software system (“Remarks”, Page 19).
Applicant further asserts that the amount of computation needed by machine learning models, such as for large artificial intelligence systems, may be enormous and software systems may need to wait a significant period of time before an inference result is returned, thus impeding the introduction of ML models as a service. Applicant further asserts that this means that the inference running time may be very long and the overall performance of the software system could be negatively impacted. Applicant further asserts, in addition, that as the machine learning model may be provided as a remote service, this may further increase the time required obtain the inference results (“Remarks”, Pages 19-20). Applicant therefore asserts that the claimed invention addresses such a technical problem with a technical solution by improving the performance of the software system (“Remarks”, Page 20).
Applicant further asserts that the claimed invention addresses the technical problem by collecting inference results of the one or more machine learning models and associated inputs and as a result, there is an improvement in the time to obtain inference results, such as reducing the time to obtain inference results (“Remarks”, Pages 23-24). Applicant further asserts there is an improvement in the performance of the software system, since the inference running time is reduced thereby allowing the introduction of machine learning models as a service to occur at an earlier time (“Remarks”, Page 24).
However, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f), "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Further, as discussed above in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1, the “estimating or generating an inference result” limitation is an abstract idea. Therefore, Applicant’s argument of a reduced time to obtain an inference result is a claimed improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer.
Applicant further asserts that the “dynamic threshold” recited in the independent claims allows for the model to improve the inference fidelity over time as it adjusts the threshold distance (“Remarks”, Page 24). Applicant further asserts that the improvement in inference fidelity translates to better software system performance by enhancing the reliability of the software’s decisions (“Remarks”, Page 24). Applicant further asserts that computational resources of the software system are used more efficiently by the model’s dynamic threshold adjustment primarily through the reduction of unnecessary downstream processing and the optimization of the overall system workload (“Remarks”, Pages 24-25).
However, regarding the “improved inference fidelity”, even if the claims did recite an improvement, it would be in the abstract idea of estimating or generating an inference result. The MPEP notes that it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Further, as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1 above, the “dynamic threshold” limitations are mentally performable. Therefore, regarding a more efficient use of resources, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f), "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Applicant further asserts that if the closest matching request is not an exact match, the current set of input features can then be sent as an asynchronous machine learning model request such that the new inference result can be added to the list of all cached results, in order to improve upon future requests (“Remarks”, Page 25).
However, regarding the “improved future requests”, even if the claims did recite an improvement, it would be in the abstract idea of “estimating or generating an inference result…”. The MPEP notes that it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II).
Applicant further asserts that by using the unsupervised clustering algorithm of the present disclosure as opposed to a direct cache implementation, input features of the cached request are returned as opposed to processing the inference request thereby improving efficiency and computing performance of the software system (“Remarks”, Page 25). Applicant therefore asserts that, even if the claims recite a judicial exception, it would be integrated into a practical application of the judicial exception (“Remarks”, Page 26).
However, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f), "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Further, as discussed above in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1, the “estimating or generating an inference result” limitation is an abstract idea. Therefore, Applicant’s argument of improving efficiency and computing performance is a claimed improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer. Therefore, the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application, and the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Upon proper overcome of the rejections applied under 35 U.S.C. 112 and 35 U.S.C. 101 discussed above, claims 1-20 would be allowable.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT NICHOLAS PRESSLY whose telephone number is (703)756-4639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamran Afshar can be reached at (571) 272-7796. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KURT NICHOLAS PRESSLY/Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125