CTFR 17/454,568 CTFR 98833 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment In the previous Office Action issued December 29, 2025 (hereinafter “the previous Office Action”), claims 1-20 were pending. This action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed March 24, 2026. In the amendment, claims 1, 8, and 15 were amended, claims 4, 11, and 17 were canceled, and no claims were added. Thus, claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are pending. The objections of claims 8-14, set forth in the previous Office Action, have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and remarks. The rejections of claims 4, 11, and 17, set forth in the previous Office Action, have been withdrawn in view of the claims’ cancelation. The rejections of claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-15, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, set forth in the previous Office Action, have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and remarks. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-3, 5-10, 12-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are directed to a method [process]. Claims 8-10 and 12-14 are directed to a computer system [machine]. Claims 15 and 18-20 are directed to a computer program product [machine]. Regarding Claim 1: Step 2A, Prong 1: The following limitations are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). inspecting one or more artifacts of one or more machine learning models determining a degree of compatibility between the one or more machine learning models and an application based on inspecting the one or more artifacts recommending one or more adjustments to the one or more artifacts based on the degree of compatibility for integrating the one or more machine learning models into the application As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitations cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). Given a sufficiently small set of data, nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with pen and paper. Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The following additional element is 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 [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. training the one or more machine learning models with the one or more adjustments to the one or more artifacts The following additional elements are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)]. wherein the inspecting includes, configuring runtime environments to allow for runtime testing utilizing a plurality of stress tests to establish training and inference time requirements for the one or more artifacts of the one or more machine learning models establishing machine learning training and timing requirements for the one or more machine learning models by running a run-time analysis operation using a plurality of testing data integrating the one or more machine learning models into the application The following additional element does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(e)]. The claim simply recites additional information regarding the characteristics of the machine learning model. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. wherein the one or more machine learning models include the one or more adjustments to the one or more artifacts Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The following additional element is 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 [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. training the one or more machine learning models with the one or more adjustments to the one or more artifacts The following additional element is directed to testing a system to determine system output. The courts (as per In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982)) have recognized testing a system to determine system output as mere data gathering when they are claimed as insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)]. wherein the inspecting includes, configuring runtime environments to allow for runtime testing utilizing a plurality of stress tests to establish training and inference time requirements for the one or more artifacts of the one or more machine learning models establishing machine learning training and timing requirements for the one or more machine learning models by running a run-time analysis operation using a plurality of testing data The following additional element is directed to integrating a machine learning model into an application at a high level of generality. Li et al. (US 20210241167), hereinafter Li, discloses in para. [0002] “Conventionally, for a software developer to include ML-based functionality into a target application, the software developer identifies a type of ML model (e.g., a neural network, a regression tree, etc.) that is to be integrated into the target application.” Li has recognized integrating machine learning models into an application as a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known in the industry [see MPEP 2106.05(d)]. integrating the one or more machine learning models into the application The following additional element does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(e)]. The claim simply recites additional information regarding the characteristics of the machine learning model. Therefore, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. wherein the one or more machine learning models include the one or more adjustments to the one or more artifacts Regarding Claim 2: Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 2 recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1. The following limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). learning one or more dependencies of the one or more machine learning models in relation to the application As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitations cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). Given a sufficiently small set of data, nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with pen and paper. Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding Claim 3: Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 3 recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1. The following limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). learning a plurality of requirements, configuration elements, machine learning model parameters and versions, one or more pre-trained machine learning models, datasets, and external dependencies while inspecting the one or more artifacts As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitations cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). Given a sufficiently small set of data, nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with pen and paper. Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding Claim 5: Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 5 recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1. The following limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). learning relationships between the one or more artifacts of the one or more machine learning models and the degree of compatibility, wherein the degree of compatibility is a compatibility score As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitations cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). Given a sufficiently small set of data, nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with pen and paper. Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding Claim 6: Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 6 recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1. The following limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). mapping one or more dependencies of the one or more machine learning models to abstract reference declarations of the application As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitations cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). Given a sufficiently small set of data, nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with pen and paper. Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding Claim 7: Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 7 recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1. The following limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). generating one or more reports relating to machine learning model integration suitability into the application providing a suitability score for integrating the one or more machine learning models into the application As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitations cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). Given a sufficiently small set of data, nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with pen and paper. Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding Claim 8: Claim 8 is a computer system claim corresponding to method claim 1. Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 8 recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1. Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The analysis of claim 8 at this step mirror that of claim 1, with the exception the following limitations. The following additional element is 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 [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. A computer system comprising: a processor set; one or more computer readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media to cause the processor set to perform operations comprising Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis of claim 8 at this step mirror that of claim 1, with the exception the following limitations. The following additional element is 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 [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. A computer system comprising: a processor set; one or more computer readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media to cause the processor set to perform operations comprising Regarding Claims 9-10 and 12-14: Claims 9-10 and 12-14 are directed to a system, corresponding to method claims 2-3 and 5-7. In particular, 9:2, 10:3, 12:5, 13:6, 14:7. Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 9-10 and 12-14 recites the same abstract ideas as in claims 2-3 and 5-7. Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The analysis of claims 9-10 and 12-14 at this step mirror that of claims 2-3 and 5-7. Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis of claims 9-14 at this step mirror that of claims 2-3 and 5-7. Regarding Claim 15: Claim 15 is a computer program product claim corresponding to method claim 1. Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1. Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The analysis of claim 15 at this step mirror that of claim 1, with the exception the following limitations. The following additional element is 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 [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. A computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media to perform operations comprising Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis of claim 15 at this step mirror that of claim 1, with the exception the following limitations. The following additional element is 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 [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. A computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media to perform operations comprising Regarding Claim 16: Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 16 recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 15. The following limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). learning one or more dependencies of the one or more machine learning models in relation to the application learning a plurality of requirements, configuration elements, machine learning model parameters and versions, one or more pre-trained machine learning models, datasets, and external dependencies while inspecting the one or more artifacts As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitations cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). Given a sufficiently small set of data, nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with pen and paper. Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding Claims 18-20: Claims 18-20 are directed to a system, corresponding to method claims 5-7. In particular, 18:5, 19:6, 20:7. Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 18-20 recites the same abstract ideas as in claims 5-7. Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The analysis of claims 18-20 at this step mirror that of claims 5-7. Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis of claims 18-20 at this step mirror that of claims 5-7. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed March 24, 2026 (“Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 35 U.S.C. § 101: Remarks, pp. 9-10. Applicant argues the emphasized portions of amended claim 1 do not recite a judicial exception. Examiner agrees the highlighted portion is not categorized as mathematical concepts, methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes. However, as discussed under section 101, other limitations recited in claim 1 are categorized as mental processes. For at least these reasons, amended claim 1 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Remarks, pp. 10-12. Applicant argues amended claim 1 recites an improvement to technology by claiming novel solutions for improving machine learning model integration in a computing environment in a computing system. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed under section 101, the limitation pertaining to machine learning model integration were found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. For at least these reasons, the amended claim 1 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 35 U.S.C. § 103: Remarks, pp. 13-15. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 under section 103 have been considered but are moot because the rejections have been withdrawn . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al. (US 20150379429), hereinafter Lee, relates to run-time optimization goals or prediction time goals and training time goals for machine learning variants within a machine learning service artefact repository, but does not disclose configuring runtime environments for runtime testing. Maffei Vallim et al. (US 20200234188), hereinafter Maffei, relates to using an RL (reinforcement learning) agent in simulated environments to collect various data. Polleri et al. (US 20210081196), hereinafter Polleri, relates to software dependencies in relation to a machine learning model. Tommasi et al. (US 20210374558), hereinafter Tommasi, relates to determining compatibility between models and software applications. Dalli et al. (US 20220198254), hereinafter Dalli, relates to machine learning model interpretability by interpreting outputs of the machine learning model. Wiltschko (US 20240021275), hereinafter Wiltschko, relates to using machine learning models to predict integration of machine learning into a practical application. Kapoor et al. (US 20240106846), hereinafter Kapoor, relates to various requirements for machine learning artifacts such as configuration, parameters, versions, data, dependencies, etc. Giri et al. (US 12014748), hereinafter Giri, relates to a machine learning model with reference dependencies. 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 STEVEN PHUNG whose telephone number is (703) 756-1499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 9:00AM-4:00PM ET. 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. /S.H.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2125 /KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125 Application/Control Number: 17/454,568 Page 2 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 17/454,568 Page 3 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 17/454,568 Page 4 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 17/454,568 Page 5 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 17/454,568 Page 6 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 17/454,568 Page 7 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 17/454,568 Page 8 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 17/454,568 Page 9 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 17/454,568 Page 10 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 17/454,568 Page 11 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 17/454,568 Page 12 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 17/454,568 Page 13 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 17/454,568 Page 14 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 17/454,568 Page 15 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 17/454,568 Page 16 Art Unit: 2125
Prosecution Insights