DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This non-final office action is in response to the amendment filed 8 April 2026.
Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are pending. Claim 5 is cancelled. Claim 21 is newly added. Claims 1 and 19-20 are independent claims.
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 1-4 and 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
According to Step 1 of the two Step analysis, claims 1-4 and 6-18 are directed toward a method (process). Claims 19 and 21 are directed toward a system (machine). Claim 20 is directed toward a computer program product (manufacture) Therefore, each of these claims falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
identifying a portion of the unlabeled data to label without using information (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an observation to identify a portion of unlabeled data to be labeled)
analyzing the labeled version and at least a portion of the received unlabeled data that has not been labeled to identify an additional portion of the unlabeled data to label and store in the labeled data including by applying at least one warm up policy, wherein the applied warm up policy analyzes both the labeled version of the identified portion and the remaining unlabeled portion of the received unlabeled data to select the additional portion of the received unlabeled data for labeling by (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation to analyze the labeled data and the unlabeled data to identify portions of the unlabeled data to label and store by applying a warm up policy):
(ii) scoring… the remaining unlabeled portion of the received unlabeled data to find greatest outliers relative to the labeled version (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation to score portions of unlabeled data and performing an observation to identify outliers)
(iii) selecting the additional portion of the unlabeled data from the found greatest outliers to minimize differences in representativeness between the labeled version and the remaining unlabeled portion (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a judgement to select portions of the unlabeled data based upon the evaluated outliers in order to minimize differences between the labeled and unlabeled portions)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
receiving a stream of unlabeled data
receiving a labeled version of the identified portion of the unlabeled data
The additional elements amount to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recites the additional element:
storing the labeled version as labeled data
The additional element amounts to extra-solution activity of data storage. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The courts have found limitations directed to storing information, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recites the additional elements:
(i) training an outlier detection model on the labeled version of the identified portion
wherein identifying the additional portion of the unlabeled data to label includes applying a hot policy associated with a query by committee policy where decisions from a plurality of machine learning models are utilized
training a machine learning model using at least the additional portion of the unlabeled data that has been labeled based on the warm up policy, wherein the machine learning model is used to make predictions on new unlabeled data
These elements of training a machine learning model are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
receiving a stream of unlabeled data
receiving a labeled version of the identified portion of the unlabeled data
The additional elements amount to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recites the additional element:
storing the labeled version as labeled data
The additional element amounts to extra-solution activity of data storage. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The courts have found limitations directed to storing information, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recites the additional elements:
(i) training an outlier detection model on the labeled version of the identified portion
wherein identifying the additional portion of the unlabeled data to label includes applying a hot policy associated with a query by committee policy where decisions from a plurality of machine learning models are utilized
training a machine learning model using at least the additional portion of the unlabeled data that has been labeled based on the warm up policy, wherein the machine learning model is used to make predictions on new unlabeled data
These elements of training a machine learning model are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2:
With respect to claim 2, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim is directed toward the same abstract idea identified with respect to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein when a first event in the stream of unlabeled data is received, no historical data is available
The additional elements amount to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein when a first event in the stream of unlabeled data is received, no historical data is available
The additional elements amount to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3:
With respect to claim 3, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim recites:
pre-processing at least a portion of the stream of unlabeled data (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an performing one of a plurality of evaluations to received data) including by at least one of:
applying domain knowledge feature engineering to transform raw fields into at least one of a numerical feature or category (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation to apply knowledge feature engineering to transform raw data into one of a numerical feature or category)
applying automatic feature engineering to generate a feature engineering plan based on semantics of raw fields (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation to applying feature engineering to generate a feature engineering plan based on semantics of the raw data)
applying unsupervised feature selection to iteratively remove features by computing pairwise correlations on a training set of features (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation to apply feature selection to iteratively remove features based on a pairwise correlation)
applying unsupervised feature selection to map a feature space to a lower dimensional space (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation to apply feature selection to map the features to a lower dimensional space)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim does not recite any additional elements evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
The claim does not recite any additional elements evaluated under Step 2B.
Claim 4:
With respect to claim 4, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein identifying the portion of the unlabeled data to label includes at least one of: randomly selecting a sample of the unlabeled data to label or performing unsupervised learning on the unlabeled data to select a sample of unlabeled data (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a judgement to identify a portion based on either a random selection or unsupervised learning selection)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim does not recite any additional elements evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
The claim does not recite any additional elements evaluated under Step 2B.
Claim 6:
With respect to claim 6, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein identifying the additional portion of the unlabeled data to label includes applying another policy after applying the warm up policy (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a judgement to identify a portion based on applying an additional policy after the warm up policy)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim does not recite any additional elements evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
The claim does not recite any additional elements evaluated under Step 2B.
Claim 7:
With respect to claim 7, the claim depends upon claim 6. The analysis of claim 6 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein the another policy is applied in response to meeting at least one switching criterion (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a judgement to identify a portion based on applying an additional policy after the warm up policy based upon an evaluation to determine a criteria is met)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim does not recite any additional elements evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
The claim does not recite any additional elements evaluated under Step 2B.
Claim 8:
With respect to claim 8, the claim depends upon claim 6. The analysis of claim 6 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein applying the another policy includes performing uncertainty sampling (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a judgement to identify a portion based on applying an uncertainty sampling policy after the warm up policy)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim does not recite any additional elements evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
The claim does not recite any additional elements evaluated under Step 2B.
Claim 9:
With respect to claim 9, the claim depends upon claim 6. The analysis of claim 6 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein the another policy is combined with a density estimate based at least in part on importance sampling ratios (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a judgement to identify a portion based on applying an additional policy after the warm up policy based upon an evaluation to determine a density estimate based at least in part on importance sampling ratios)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim does not recite any additional elements evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
The claim does not recite any additional elements evaluated under Step 2B.
Claim 10:
With respect to claim 10, the claim depends upon claim 6. The analysis of claim 6 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein the another policy is combined with a density estimate (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a judgement to identify a portion based on applying an additional policy after the warm up policy based upon an evaluation to determine a density estimate) by:
separating unlabeled data into a first group and a second group (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses separating data into two groups, this separation is based upon an evaluation)
prioritizing unlabeled data in the first group based at least in part on scoring that prioritizes instances by probability density magnitude (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation to score a first group based upon probability density)
prioritizing unlabeled data in the second group based at least in part on scoring that prioritizes instances by importance sampling ratio magnitude (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation to score a first group based upon importance sampling ratio magnitude)
prioritizing the first group over the second group (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a judgement to prioritize a first group based upon the previous evaluation)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim does not recite any additional elements evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
The claim does not recite any additional elements evaluated under Step 2B.
Claim 11:
With respect to claim 11, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim is directed toward the same abstract idea identified with respect to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the unlabeled data does not grow in size
As noted, this claim depends upon claim 1. The limitation is being interpreted as though it recites “receiving a stream of unlabeled data (claim 1), wherein the unlabeled data does not grow in size (claim 11).” The additional elements amount to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the unlabeled data does not grow in size
As noted, this claim depends upon claim 1. The limitation is being interpreted as though it recites “receiving a stream of unlabeled data (claim 1), wherein the unlabeled data does not grow in size (claim 11).” The additional elements amount to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12:
With respect to claim 12, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim is directed toward the same abstract idea identified with respect to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein in a first state, the labeled data includes labeled events
As noted, this claim depends upon claim 1. The limitation is being interpreted as though it recites “receiving a labeled version of the identified portion of the unlabeled data and storing the labeled version as labeled data (claim 1), wherein in a first state, the labeled data includes labeled events (claim 12).” The additional elements amount to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein in a first state, the labeled data includes labeled events
As noted, this claim depends upon claim 1. The limitation is being interpreted as though it recites “receiving a labeled version of the identified portion of the unlabeled data and storing the labeled version as labeled data (claim 1), wherein in a first state, the labeled data includes labeled events (claim 12).” The additional elements amount to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13:
With respect to claim 13, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim is directed toward the same abstract idea identified with respect to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
performing supervised learning of a machine learning model including by using at least a portion of the labeled data to train the machine learning model
These elements of training a machine learning model are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
performing supervised learning of a machine learning model including by using at least a portion of the labeled data to train the machine learning model
These elements of training a machine learning model are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14:
With respect to claim 13, the claim depends upon claim 13. The analysis of claim 13 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim is directed toward the same abstract idea identified with respect to claim 13.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein performing supervised training of a machine learning model further includes:
splitting data to be processed by the machine learning model into one or more Train-Validation pairs to train
determining one or more performance metrics of the machine learning model for each pair
These elements of training a machine learning model are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein performing supervised training of a machine learning model further includes:
splitting data to be processed by the machine learning model into one or more Train-Validation pairs to train
determining one or more performance metrics of the machine learning model for each pair
These elements of training a machine learning model are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15:
With respect to claim 15, the claim depends upon claim 14. The analysis of claim 14 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
prior to performing supervised training using the labeled data: determining that the machine learning model is ready for deployment based on at least one deployment criterion; wherein the at least one deployment criterion is based at least in part on stabilization of metrics that are independent of scoring rules (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a judgement to determine a model is ready for deployment based upon an evaluation of stabilization metrics independent of scoring rules)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim does not recite any additional elements evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
The claim does not recite any additional elements evaluated under Step 2B.
Claim 16:
With respect to claim 16, the claim depends upon claim 13. The analysis of claim 13 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
prior to performing supervised training using the labeled data: determining that the machine learning model is ready for deployment based on at least one deployment criterion (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a judgement to determine a model is ready for deployment based upon an evaluation of stabilization metrics independent of scoring rules)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim does not recite any additional elements evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
The claim does not recite any additional elements evaluated under Step 2B.
Claim 17:
With respect to claim 17, the claim depends upon claim 16. The analysis of claim 16 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein the at least one deployment criterion is based at least in part on stabilization of metrics that are independent of scoring rules (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a judgement to determine a model is ready for deployment based upon an evaluation of stabilization metrics independent of scoring rules)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim does not recite any additional elements evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
The claim does not recite any additional elements evaluated under Step 2B.
Claim 19:
With respect to claim 18, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein the warmup policy indicates an outlier discriminative active learning policy (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation that the warm up policy includes a discriminative active learning policy)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim does not recite any additional elements evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
The claim does not recite any additional elements evaluated under Step 2B.
Claim 19:
With respect to claim 19, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim is directed toward the same abstract idea identified with respect to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
a processor configured to:
The element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
a processor configured to:
The element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 20:
With respect to claim 20, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim is directed toward the same abstract idea identified with respect to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
a computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions
The element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
a computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions
The element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 21:
With respect to claim 21, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 2. The analysis of claim 2 is incorporated herein by reference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE R STORK whose telephone number is (571)272-4130. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 2pm; 4pm - 6pm.
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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at 571/272-2589. 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.
/KYLE R STORK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights