CONFIGURING A MACHINE LEARNING MODEL BASED ON DATA RECEIVED FROM A PLURALITY OF DATA SOURCES

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 . Response to Amendment The following is in response to the amendment filed on May 20, 2026. 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, 2, 5-11, 14-18 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. 101 Subject Matter Eligibility analysis Step 1: Claims 1, 2, 5-11, 14-18 and 21-26 are within the four statutory categories (a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter). With respect to claim 1: Step2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG. determining, based on a first selecting process that selects first cells from aggregated data, first selected data, wherein the aggregated data is randomly selected, based on a random number generated by a random number generator, from a plurality of data sources and formatted into rows and columns, and wherein the first selected data includes one or more overlapping cells and one or more first non-overlapping cells; (The “determining” step, as drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, we can leverage our memory to sort through information and pick out information (selecting) that is most important, in this case one can randomly mentally determine first selected data where the data include overlapping and non-overlapping cells and is from a plurality of data source; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).) determining, based on a second selecting process that selects second cells from the aggregated data, second selected data, wherein the second selected data includes the one or more overlapping cells and one or more second non-overlapping cells, and wherein the overlapping cells include any cell that was selected by both the first selecting process and the second selecting process; (The “determining” step, as drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, we can leverage our memory to sort through information and pick out information (selecting) that is most important, in this case one can mentally determine second selected data where the data include overlapping and non-overlapping cells; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).) determining, whether the first selected data and the second selected data comprise overlapping cells; The “determining” step, as drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, we can leverage our memory to sort through information and pick out information (selecting) that is most important, in this case one can mentally determine overlapping cells between to data sets; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).) based on a determination that the first selected data and the second selected data comprise overlapping cells, adjusting at least one of the one or more first model weights and the one or more second model weights; (This is an abstract idea of a “Mental Process.” The “generating” step, as drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of calculating weights and adding weights together which can be practically performed in the human mind, in this case one can mentally, with the aid of pen an paper, generate weights by adjusting initial weights based on a determination that the selected data comprise overlapping cells; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Generating, based on the one or more adjust first model weights and based on the one or more adjusted second model weights, one or more aggregated model weights for an aggregated model; (This is an abstract idea of a “Mental Process.” The “generating” step, as drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of calculating weights and adding weights together which can be practically performed in the human mind, in this case one can mentally, with the aid of pen an paper, generate weights by adjusting initial weights based on a determination that the selected data comprise overlapping cells; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Generating one or more predicted user behaviors for the plurality of data sources based on the aggregated data. (This is an abstract idea of a “Mental Process.” The “generating” step, as drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts generating a prediction, in this case one can mentally, generate a prediction of user behaviors based on the aggregated data; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Additional elements: sending, to one or more first computing devices associated with a first data source of the plurality of data sources, the first selected data; sending, to one or more second computing devices associated with a second data source of the plurality of data sources, the second selected data; receiving, from the one or more first computing devices, one or more first model weights corresponding to a first model trained using the first selected data; receiving, from the one or more second computing devices, one or more second model weights corresponding to a second model using the second selected data; (The “Sending” and “Receiving” steps add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g). These elements represent generic computer functions (i.e., e.g., mere transmitting data in conjunction with the abstract idea).) one or more first computing devices associated with a first data source of the plurality of data sources; one or more second computing devices associated with a second data source of the plurality of data sources; the one or more first computing devices, one or more first model weights that are based on training a first model using the first selected data; from the one or more second computing devices, one or more second model weights that are based on training a second model using the second selected data; ( This describes additional elements as “apply it”, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). configuring the aggregated model using the one or more aggregated model weights. (These elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. This “configuring” step represents computer instruction’s that are configured to apply the abstract idea. Nothing in the claim provides technical solution beyond the generic recitation of using mental process to perform the abstract idea.) using the aggregated model. (These elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. This “using” step represents computer instruction’s that are used to apply the abstract idea. Nothing in the claim provides technical solution beyond the generic recitation of using mental process to perform the abstract idea.) Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above in step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements, such as the “to one or more first computing devices associated with a first data source of the plurality of data sources” and “from the one or more first computing devices” and “Sending”, and “Receiving”, does not add significantly more since the intended practical application is well-understood, routine, and conventional and stated at a generic level. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, claim 1 is ineligible. With respect to claim 2: Step2A Prong 1: Claim 2, which incorporates the rejection of claim 1, doesn’t recite an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Additional elements: wherein the first selecting process is performed based on one or more first data confidentiality procedures associated with the first data source; (Describes an additional element as “apply it”, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). wherein the first selecting process results in the one or more first non-overlapping cells including first confidential data associated with the first data source; (Describes an additional element as “apply it”, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). wherein the second selecting process is performed based on one or more second data confidentiality procedures associated with the second data source; (Describes an additional element as “apply it”, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). and wherein the second selecting process results in the one or more second non- overlapping cells including second confidential data associated with the second data source. (Describes an additional element as “apply it”, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above, the additional elements in this claim merely represents computer instructions that are configured to apply the judicial exception on a computer. The recitation of a generic, conventional components don’t provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) Therefore, claim 2 is ineligible. With respect to claim 5: Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 5 recites similar limitations as corresponding to claim 1. Therefore, the same analysis (the abstract ideas of “mental process”) that utilized under step 2A Prong 1 for claim 1, as described above, is equally applicable to claim 5: determining, based on a third selecting process that selects third cells from the aggregated data, third selected data, wherein the third selected data includes a plurality of third non-overlapping cells and is without any overlapping cells; determining, based on a fourth selecting process that selects fourth cells from the aggregated data, fourth selected data, wherein the fourth selected data includes a plurality of fourth non-overlapping cells and is without any overlapping cells; (The “determining” step, as drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, we can leverage our memory to sort through information and pick out information (selecting) that is most important, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).) generating the one or more aggregated model weights for the aggregated model is performed based on the one or more third model weights and the one or more fourth model weights; (This is an abstract idea of a “Mental Process.” The “generating” step, as drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, coadding numerical weights from different models can be practically performed in the human mind, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). This step involves determining aggregated model weights based on third and fourth model weights involves performing mathematical calculations to combine numerical data, which constitutes an abstract idea under the mathematical concepts grouping.) Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Additional elements: sending, to one or more third computing devices associated with a third data source of the plurality of data sources, the third selected data; sending, to one or more fourth computing devices associated with a fourth data source of the plurality of data sources, the fourth selected data; receiving, from the one or more third computing devices, one or more third model weights corresponding to a third model trained using the third selected data; receiving, from the one or more fourth computing devices, one or more fourth model weights corresponding to a fourth model trained using the fourth selected data; (The “Sending” and “Receiving” steps add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g). These elements represent generic computer functions (i.e., e.g., mere transmitting data in conjunction with the abstract idea). Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above in Step 2A prong 2, the additional elements, such as the “one or more third computing devices associated with a third data source of the plurality of data sources” and “from the one or more third computing devices” and “Sending”, and “Receiving”, does not add significantly more since the intended practical application is well-understood, routine, and conventional and stated at a generic level. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, claim 5 is ineligible. With respect to claim 6: Step2A Prong 1: Claim 6, which incorporates the rejection of claim 1, recites further limitation such as: determining, based on a randomized aggregation process, the aggregated data, (This is an abstract idea of a “Mental Process.” The “determining” step, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, adding data randomly can be practically performed in the human mind and/ or with the aid of pen and paper, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).) Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Additional elements: receiving, from the one or more first computing devices, one or more first data records; receiving, from the one or more second computing devices, one or more second data records; (The “receiving” steps as insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g). These elements represent generic computer functions (i.e., e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea).) wherein the randomized aggregation process aggregates the rows of the one or more first data records and the rows of the one or more second data records into a randomized order. (Describes an additional element as “apply it”, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above in Step 2A prong 2, the additional elements, such as the recitation of “the rows of the one or more first data records and the rows of the one or more second data records into a randomized order” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the “receiving” steps, as recited in the claim, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception because they represent well-known, routine, and conventional functions in the field when they are claimed in a generic manner, see MPEP § 2106.05(d) Therefore, claim 6 is ineligible. With respect to claim 7: Step2A Prong 1: Claim 7, which incorporates the rejection of claim 1, doesn’t recite an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Additional Elements receiving, from the one or more first computing devices, one or more first data records that include first confidential data; (The “receiving” steps add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g). These elements represent generic computer functions (i.e., e.g., mere transmitting data in conjunction with the abstract idea).) receiving, from the one or more second computing devices, one or more second data records that include second confidential data; (The “receiving” steps add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g). These elements represent generic computer functions (i.e., e.g., mere transmitting data in conjunction with the abstract idea).) hashing the first confidential data, resulting in hashed first confidential data; (Describes an additional element as “apply it”, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). hashing the second confidential data, resulting in hashed second confidential data; (Describes an additional element as “apply it”, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). wherein the aggregated data includes the hashed first confidential data and the hashed second confidential data. (Describes an additional element as “apply it”, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above in Step 2A prong 2, the additional elements, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the “receiving” steps, as recited in the claim, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception because they represent well-known routine, and conventional functions in the field when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d). Therefore, claim 7 is ineligible. With respect to claim 8: Step2A Prong 1: Claim 8, which incorporates the rejection of claim 1, recites further limitation such as: determining, based on the plurality of data sources, to send third selected data to the third data source; (This is an abstract idea of a “Mental Process.” The “determining” step, as drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, determining the source of a data can be practically performed in the human mind, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).) Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Additional elements: wherein the plurality of data sources includes a third data source; (Describes an additional element as “apply it”, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above in Step 2A prong 2, the additional elements, such as the recitation of “plurality of data sources includes a third data source” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 8 is ineligible. With respect to claim 9: Step2A Prong 1: Claim 9, which incorporates the rejection of claim 1, doesn’t recite an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. wherein the aggregated data includes one or more first data records associated with the first data source; (Describes an additional element as “apply it”, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). wherein the one or more first data record includes data indicative of transactions with users associated with the first data source; (Describes an additional element as “apply it”, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). wherein the first model is usable to determine one or more predicted user behaviors for the first data source; and wherein the aggregated model is usable to determine one or more predicted user behaviors for the plurality of data sources. (Describes an additional element as “apply it”, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above, the additional elements in this claim merely represents computer instructions that are configured to apply the judicial exception on a computer. The recitation of a generic, conventional components don’t provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) Therefore, claim 9 is ineligible. With respect to claim 10: The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 1, Therefore, the same subject matter analysis that was utilized for claim 1, as described above, is equally applicable to claim 10. Therefore, claim 10 is ineligible. With respect to claim 11: The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 2, Therefore, the same subject matter analysis that was utilized for claim 2, as described above, is equally applicable to claim 11. Therefore, claim 11 is ineligible. With respect to claim 14: The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 5, Therefore, the same subject matter analysis that was utilized for claim 5, as described above, is equally applicable to claim 14. Therefore, claim 14 is ineligible. With respect to claim 15: The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 6, Therefore, the same subject matter analysis that was utilized for claim 6, as described above, is equally applicable to claim 15. Therefore, claim 15 is ineligible. With respect to claim 16: The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 7, Therefore, the same subject matter analysis that was utilized for claim 7, as described above, is equally applicable to claim 16. Therefore, claim 16 is ineligible. With respect to claim 17: The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 1, Therefore, the same subject matter analysis that was utilized for claim 1, as described above, is equally applicable to claim 17. Therefore, claim 17 is ineligible. With respect to claim 18: The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 2, Therefore, the same subject matter analysis that was utilized for claim 2, as described above, is equally applicable to claim`8. Therefore, claim 18 is ineligible. With respect to claim 19: The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 3, Therefore, the same subject matter analysis that was utilized for claim 3, as described above, is equally applicable to claim 19. Therefore, claim 19 is ineligible. With respect to claim 21: Step2A Prong 1: Claim 21, which incorporates the rejection of claim 1, recites further limitation such as: Wherein applying the adjustment to at least one of the one or more first model weights and the one or more second model weights comprises: increasing at least one model weight of the one or more first model weights or the one or more second model weights, based on determining that the first selected data and the second selected data comprise overlapping cells. (This is an abstract idea of a “Mental Process.” The “increasing” step, as drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, increases a weight , in this case one can mentally increase a weight based on the determination that data comprises overlapping cells; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).) Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite additional elements. Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to claim 22: Step2A Prong 1: Claim 22, which incorporates the rejection of claim 1, recites further limitation such as: Wherein applying the adjustment to at least one of the one or more first model weights and the one or more second model weights comprises: reducing at least one model weight of the one or more first model weights or the one more second model weights, based on determining that the fist selected data and the second selected data comprise overlapping cells. (This is an abstract idea of a “Mental Process.” The “reducing” step, as drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, reduces a weight, in this case one can mentally decrease a weight based on the determination that data comprises overlapping cells; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).) Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite additional elements. Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to claim 23: Step2A Prong 1: Claim 23, which incorporates the rejection of claim 1, recites further limitation such as: Wherein applying the adjustment to at least one of the one or more first model weights and the one or more second model weights is based on determining whether the first selected data and the second selected data comprise a threshold amount of overlapping cells. (This is an abstract idea of a “Mental Process.” The “applying an adjustment” step, as drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, applies and adjustment based on a determination that a threshold amount of overlapping cells is met ; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).) Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite additional elements. Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to claim 24: Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 24 recites similar limitations as corresponding to claim 1. Therefore, the same analysis (the abstract ideas of “mental process”) that utilized under step 2A Prong 1 for claim 1, as described above, is equally applicable to claim 24: determine, based on a third selecting process that selects third cells from the aggregated data, third selected data, determine, based on a fourth selecting process that selects fourth cells from the aggregated data, fourth selected data; (The “determining” step, as drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, we can leverage our memory to sort through information and pick out information (selecting) that is most important, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).) generating the one or more aggregated model weights for the aggregated model is performed based on the one or more third model weights and the one or more fourth model weights and the indication that the third selected data and the fourth selected data are without any overlapping cells. (This is an abstract idea of a “Mental Process.” The “generating” step, as drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, coadding numerical weights from different models can be practically performed in the human mind, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). This step involves determining aggregated model weights based on third and fourth model weights involves performing mathematical calculations to combine numerical data, which constitutes an abstract idea under the mathematical concepts grouping.) Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Additional elements: store an indication that the third selected data and the fourth selected data are without any overlapping cells; send, to one or more third computing devices associated with a third data source of the plurality of data sources, the third selected data; send, to one or more fourth computing devices associated with a fourth data source of the plurality of data sources, the fourth selected data; receive, from the one or more third computing devices, one or more third model weights corresponding to a third model trained using the third selected data; receive, from the one or more fourth computing devices, one or more fourth model weights corresponding to a fourth model trained using the fourth selected data; (The “Sending” and “Receiving” steps add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g). These elements represent generic computer functions (i.e., e.g., mere transmitting data in conjunction with the abstract idea). Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above in Step 2A prong 2, the additional elements, such as the “one or more third computing devices associated with a third data source of the plurality of data sources” and “from the one or more third computing devices” and “Sending”, and “Receiving”, does not add significantly more since the intended practical application is well-understood, routine, and conventional and stated at a generic level. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, claim 24 is ineligible. With respect to claim 25: The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 6, Therefore, the same subject matter analysis that was utilized for claim 6, as described above, is equally applicable to claim 25. Therefore, claim 25 is ineligible. With respect to claim 26: The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 7, Therefore, the same subject matter analysis that was utilized for claim 6, as described above, is equally applicable to claim 26. Therefore, claim 26 is ineligible. Response to Arguments Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a mental process because the claims recite a distributed computing architecture, machine-learning model training, receipt and adjustment of model weights, and generation of predicted user behaviors. The Applicant further argues that the claimed random-number-generator limitation cannot be performed in the human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The inclusion of a processor, memory, communications between computing devices, and machine-learning models does not, itself, remove the claims from the mental-process category. The claimed operations, when viewed at a high level, recite selecting and organizing data, comparing selected data to identify overlap, modifying numerical values, combining the values, and using the resulting values to generate a prediction. The limitation requiring that the aggregated data be randomly selected based on a random number generated by a random number generator does not materially alter this analysis. The claim does not recite a particular random-number-generation technique, a specialized random-number generator, or a specific technical improvement to random-number generation. Random selection is a conventional form of data selection, and the use of a generic random-number generator to perform that selection is merely a computer implementation of the selection process. The Applicant’s assertion that the human mind cannot generate “truly random” numbers is not dispositive. The relevant inquiry is whether the claimed data-selection and analysis steps recite an abstract mental process, not whether a human can produce mathematically perfect randomness. Moreover, limitations involving a computer, memory, data transmission, machine-learning models, model weights, or large volumes of data do not necessarily preclude characterization of the underlying concept as an abstract idea. The claims may require computer implementation as a practical matter, but that does not establish that the claims are directed to a technological improvement. The claims therefore recite an abstract idea, including the analysis of data, the identification of overlapping information, the manipulation of numerical model parameters, and the generation of a prediction. Applicant also argues that the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by improving distributed machine-learning model training and by accounting for overlap among training data from different data sources. This argument is not persuasive because the claims do not recite a particular improvement to computer functionality or to the operation of the machine-learning technology itself. Instead, the claims use generic computing devices to: select data from an aggregated dataset; send selected data to separate devices; receive model weights; determine whether selected data overlaps; adjust model weights; aggregate the adjusted weights; and generate predicted user behavior. The claim does not specify how the model weights are adjusted, how the adjusted weights are mathematically aggregated, or how the claimed operations improve the operation of the computing devices, the model architecture, the communications network, or the training process. The claimed result is an improved or configured model for generating a desired prediction, rather than a recited improvement in computer technology. The random selection limitation does not provide the required integration into a practical application. The claim does not establish that random selection provides concrete technological benefit. Rather, the random-number generator is used to perform the claimed data-selection process. Similarly, sending and receiving the selected data and model weights constitute generic data transfer operations. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIELA D REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-1006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am -5:00 pm. 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 Wiley can be reached at (571) 272-3923. 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. /Mariela Reyes/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2142