DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The filing date of the present invention is 12/15/2021.
In response to amendments and/or remarks filed on 02/27/2026, the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections made in the previous Office Action has been withdrawn.
In response to amendments and/or remarks filed on 02/27/2026, the 35 U.S.C 101 software per se rejections made in the previous Office Action has been withdrawn.
In response to amendments and/or remarks filed on 02/27/2026, the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections made in the previous Office Action has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant asserts that “In other words, the additional elements enable claim 1, when read as a whole, to provide a method and a machine learning model that monitors anomalies in the history of data efficacy scores and generates recommendations for improving the efficacy of a dataset or a segment of customer profiles. Furthermore, an improved way of training a machine learning model that protected the model's knowledge about previous tasks while allowing the machine learning model to effectively learn new tasks and improvements to system performance based upon adjustments to parameters of a machine learning model associated with machine learning tasks when considered as a whole may integrate an independent claim into a practical application. See Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential).
Claim 1 recite training methods of a machine learning model including "learning a function that maps a meta-feature matrix and a data quality metric matrix to a predicted data quality label matrix using a ground-truth matrix of ground-truth data quality labels," an improved way of training a machine learning model to improve data profile efficacy that is generalizable and adaptive across domains. Claim 1 thus improves the computational technology and field of machine learning or artificial intelligence. Therefore, because claim 1 integrates an alleged judicial exception into a practical application, claim 1 is patent eligible Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn” (Remarks pg. 9-14)
Examiner’s response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim as a whole is still directed to abstract idea mental process. The claim is using machine learning to make prediction about data efficacy.
Regarding applicant’s reliance on the decision of the Appeals Review Panel in Ex parte Desjardins, No. 2024-000567 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 26, 2025), Examiner notes that, in Desjardins, unlike in the claims at issue here, the appellants specifically argued that the claimed invention “address[es] challenges in continual learning and model efficiency by reducing storage requirements and preserving task performance across sequential training”. Desjardins, op. at 7.
That is, the appellant in Desjardins specifically alleged that the claimed subject matter improves machine learning itself. By contrast, Applicant in the instant case does not point to any specific claim language that characterizing an improvement, and does not point to any claim language that is analogous to the claims at issue in Desjardins.
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. The analysis of the claims will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”).
Regarding claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“…wherein the data comprises a plurality of fields of unknown efficacy; determining a plurality of data quality metrics for the data; …the data based on the determined plurality of data quality metrics and based on attributes of the plurality of fields wherein meta-features for the data are obtained;”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
“predicting, by the…based efficacy scorer, a value for a data quality metric each of the determined plurality of data quality metrics using an ML model that takes the meta-features as input, wherein the value indicates whether a corresponding the data quality metric is suitable for measuring efficacy of the plurality of fields; … wherein the data quality metric measures the efficacy of the plurality of fields, and …and monitoring, by an anomaly monitor, the efficacy of the plurality of fields in the data received from the data source based on the selected data quality metric, wherein fields of the plurality of fields that are determined to lack efficacy are rejected.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical.
In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “mapping, by the machine-learning (ML) based efficacy scorer,… selecting, by the machine-learning (ML) based efficacy scorer, the data quality metric from among the determined plurality of data quality metrics based on the value… wherein the ML model is trained by learning a function that maps a meta-feature matrix and a data quality metric matrix to a predicted data quality label matrix using a ground-truth matrix of ground-truth data quality labels;” as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. In addition, the claim limitation “A method of determining efficacy of a dataset, comprising: receiving, by a machine-learning (ML) based efficacy scorer, data from a data source,” as explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(g). 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.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The only remaining limitation of the claim “A method of determining efficacy of a dataset, comprising: receiving, by a machine-learning (ML) based efficacy scorer, data from a data source,” constitute storing and retrieving information in memory, which the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See 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). 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.
Regarding claim 2
Step 1: The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“The method of claim 1, …a meta-feature matrix M of size n by f, wherein n is a number of attributes across all datasets, and f is a number of meta-features, wherein meta-features are derived for every attribute of each dataset; computing, for each dataset in the set of training datasets, a data quality metric matrix Q of size n by m wherein m is number of data quality metrics across all the datasets, and each of the m data quality metrics is computed for every data column/attribute for all the datasets; providing a ground truth matrix Y of ground-truth data quality labels, wherein each row in Y corresponds to a data-column in some dataset and each columns represents an actual ground-truth data quality metric; and learning a function ƒ that maps M and Q to Y, such that ƒ([M Q])=Y, ”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “wherein the ML model is trained by computing, for each dataset in a set of training datasets,” as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3
Step 1: The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“wherein monitoring the efficacy of the fields in the data comprises comparing a new data efficacy value of a field with a distribution of previously stored data efficacy values, and determining the new data efficacy value as anomalous when said value is outside of a minimum value or a maximum value of an inter-quartile range of said distribution.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not appear to recite additional elements that might integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount of significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4
Step 1: The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“wherein monitoring the efficacy of the fields in the data comprises, for categorical values of the fields in the data, learning an embedding for each categorical value of the data using an autoencoder, wherein a fixed-length scalar vector is obtained that contains semantics of each categorical value; compressing the fixed-length scalar vector into a condensed vector and learning from the condensed vector a core pattern configured to compress and reconstruct the fixed-length scalar vector; and identifying a new fixed-length scalar vector obtained from the data as anomalous when the compressed new fixed-length scalar vector cannot be reconstructed from the core pattern.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not appear to recite additional elements that might integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount of significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5
Step 1: The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“further comprising recommending, by an efficacy recommender, solutions to enhance data efficacy of fields in the data based on characteristics of each field that has poor efficacy, wherein said solutions include one or more of interpolating missing values, including neighboring values, standardizing synonymous values, removing invalid values, or merging mutual attributes.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not appear to recite additional elements that might integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount of significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6
Step 1: The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“ …wherein said …includes a sentence-level recurrent neural network header module and character-level …ell value module, and automatically measures semantic similarity among data attributes and provides an efficacy recommendation of similar data attribute clusters based on the semantic similarity.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “wherein merging mutual attributes includes training a hybrid deep learning model to understand each data column attribute, including both a header and a column value …hybrid deep learning model… convolutional neural network” as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7
Step 1: The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“…a meta-feature matrix M of size n by f, wherein n is a number of attributes across all datasets, and f is a number of meta-features, wherein meta-features are derived for every attribute of each dataset; computing, for each dataset in the set of training datasets, a data quality metric matrix Q of size n by m wherein m is number of data quality metrics across all the datasets, and each of the m data quality metrics is computed for every data column/attribute for all the datasets; providing a ground truth matrix Y of ground-truth data quality labels, wherein each row in Y corresponds to a data-column in some dataset and each columns represents an actual ground-truth data quality metric; and learning a function ƒ that maps M and Q to Y, such that ƒ([M Q])=Y, wherein given a new unseen data-attribute/column
PNG
media_image1.png
202
814
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “A system for determining efficacy of a dataset, comprising: one or more processors; a memory coupled to and in communication with the one or more processors; a user interface that includes dashboard visualizations and is configured to receive user inputs; wherein the machine-learning based efficacy scorer is configured to train a machine-learning (ML) model than predicts a value for each of a plurality of data quality metrics, wherein the machine-learning (ML) model is trained by computing, for each dataset in a set of training datasets,” as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8
Step 1: The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“wherein the plurality of data sources include a plurality of datasets, an efficacy score history, and experience logs, and wherein the efficacy score history is updated by the anomaly monitor, and the experience logs are updated by user inputs received through the ….”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “user interface” as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9
Step 1: The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“wherein the statistical efficacy scorer is configured to compute a set of data quality metrics, to score a field in a dataset by evaluating a weighted sum of one or more of the computed set of data quality metrics, to receive weight adjustments from a user, and to explain to the user how the field score is derived.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not appear to recite additional elements that might integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount of significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10
Step 1: The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“further comprising, for a dataset that includes hierarchical data in a plurality of hierarchy levels, for each level in the hierarchical data, aggregating values for each group of fields that have a common parent node wherein a value for that parent node is computed”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not appear to recite additional elements that might integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount of significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11
Step 1: The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“wherein the efficacy recommender is configured to determine recommended solutions to enhance data efficacy of fields of a dataset based on characteristics of each field that has poor efficacy, wherein each field is associated with an attribute of the dataset, wherein said solutions include one or more of interpolating missing values, including neighboring values, standardizing synonymous values, removing invalid values, or merging mutual attributes, and to output the recommended solutions to the user interface through a recommender API.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not appear to recite additional elements that might integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount of significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12
Step 1: The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“…and automatically measures semantic similarity among data attributes and provides an efficacy recommendation of similar data attribute clusters based on the semantic similarity.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “wherein merging mutual attributes includes training a hybrid deep learning model to understand each data column attribute, including both a header and a column value….wherein said hybrid deep learning model includes a sentence-level recurrent neural network header module and character-level convolutional neural network cell value module” as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13
Step 1: The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“wherein the anomaly monitor is configured to monitor data efficacy of a dataset by comparing a new data efficacy value of a field in the dataset with a distribution of previously stored data efficacy values, and to determine the new data efficacy value as anomalous when said value is outside of a minimum value or a maximum value of an inter-quartile range of said distribution, and to output a notification to the ….”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “user interface through an alert API” as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14
Step 1: The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“wherein, for datasets that include categorical values, the anomaly monitor is configured to learn an embedding for each categorical value of the datasets using an autoencoder, wherein a fixed-length scalar vector is obtained that contains semantics of the categorical value; compress the fixed-length scalar vector into a condensed vector and learn from the condensed vector a core pattern configured to compress and reconstruct the fixed-length scalar vector; and identify a new fixed-length scalar vector obtained from a new incoming dataset as anomalous when a compressed new fixed-length scalar vector cannot be reconstructed from the core pattern.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not appear to recite additional elements that might integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount of significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15
Step 1: The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“A method of determining efficacy of a dataset, comprising [[the]] steps of: receiving, by a statistical efficacy scorer, data from a data source, wherein the data comprises a plurality of fields of unknown efficacy; determining, by [[a]] the statistical efficacy scorer, a [[set]] plurality of data quality metrics and statistics for the data; mapping, by the statistical efficacy scorer, the data based on the determined plurality of data quality metrics and based on attributes of the plurality of fields wherein meta-features for the data are obtained; predicting, by the statistical efficacy scorer, a value for a data quality metric of the determined plurality of data quality metrics using a machine learning model that takes the meta- features as input, wherein the value indicates whether the data quality metric is suitable for measuring efficacy of the plurality of fields; scoring, by the statistical efficacy scorer, a field in [[a]] the dataset of unknown efficacy with the [[set]] determined plurality of data quality metrics and statistics by evaluating a weighted sum of one or more of the [[set]] determined plurality of data quality metrics, wherein an efficacy score of the field is derived; presenting, by the statistical efficacy scorer, the efficacy score to [[the]] a user along with an explanation of how the efficacy score was derived; selecting, by the statistical efficacy scorer, the data quality metric from among the determined plurality of data quality metrics based on the value, wherein the data quality metric measures the efficacy of the plurality of fields, … and a data quality metric matrix to a predicted data quality label matrix using a ground-truth matrix of ground-truth data quality labels; receiving, by the statistical efficacy scorer, adjustments of weights for one or more of the determined plurality of data quality metrics from the user, wherein an adjusted set of data quality metrics is derived; and monitoring, by an anomaly monitor, data efficacy of a new, incoming dataset with the adjusted set of data quality metrics based on the selected data quality metric, wherein fields of the plurality of fields that are determined to lack efficacy are rejected.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “wherein merging mutual attributes includes training a hybrid deep learning model to understand each data column attribute, including both a header and a column value….wherein said hybrid deep learning model includes a sentence-level recurrent neural network header module and character-level convolutional neural network cell value module… and wherein the machine learning model is trained by learning a function that maps a meta-feature matrix” as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16
Step 1: The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“wherein providing a determining the plurality of data quality metrics and statistics comprises one of computing the plurality of data quality metrics and statistics or receiving manually defined data quality metrics and statistics from a domain expert.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not appear to recite additional elements that might integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount of significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17
Step 1: The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“wherein monitoring the data efficacy of the new, incoming dataset comprises comparing a new data efficacy value of a field of the new, incoming dataset with a distribution of previously stored data efficacy values, and determining new data efficacy value as anomalous when said value is outside of a minimum value or a maximum value of an inter-quartile range of said distribution.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not appear to recite additional elements that might integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount of significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18
Step 1: The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“further comprising recommending, by an efficacy recommender, solutions to enhance data efficacy of fields in the new incoming dataset based on characteristics of each data attribute that has poor efficacy, wherein said solutions include one or more of interpolating missing values, including neighboring values, standardizing synonymous values, removing invalid values, or merging mutual attributes”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not appear to recite additional elements that might integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount of significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19
Step 1: The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“…and providing an efficacy recommendation of similar data attributes based on the measured semantic similarity, wherein the …model includes a sentence-level …header module and character-level convolutional neural network cell value module.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “wherein merging the mutual attributes comprises training a hybrid deep learning model that understands each data column attribute, including both a header and a column value, automatically measuring, using the hybrid deep learning model, a semantic similarity among data attributes of fields in the new incoming dataset… recurrent neural network” as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20
Step 1: The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“wherein the data includes hierarchical data that includes fields in a plurality of hierarchy levels, and further comprising, for each level in the hierarchical data, aggregating values for each group of fields that have a common parent node wherein a value for that parent node is computed.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not appear to recite additional elements that might integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount of significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAN C MANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7598. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Yi can be reached at 5712707519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VAN C MANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2126
Prosecution Insights