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 .
This Office Action is in response to amendment filed on March 10, 2026
Claims 1 – 25 are presented for examination.
Claims 1 – 8 and 21 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 101:
Applicant argues:
Applicant argues that the claimed application is analogous to Desjardins and an improvement to machine learning, as stated on pages 12 – 15 of the remarks.
Applicant argues that the claims cannot be mentally performable due to the fact of the use of AI to perform the claimed limitations, as stated on pages 15 – 16 of the remarks.
Applicant argues that the recitation of autoencoders and neural networks amount to more than mere generic computer equipment, as stated on pages 16 – 18 of the remarks.
Examiner’s answer:
Regarding the Applicant’s assertion that the claim as a whole is directed to an improvement to training a machine learning model, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with pages 12 – 15 of the Applicant’s remarks. The Applicant points to the following lines of its specification to prove improvement, [P3:26 – P4:L24]: recites the use of “Existing techniques for addressing data errors”, specifically ETL/ELT and SME, while the Applicant does point out the possible deficiencies of correcting data errors using these techniques they do present a use case in combination with the Applicants instant case that an ordinary artisan would see as an improvement to the art. The Applicant also that the instant case is similar to Desjardins, the Examiner disagrees because Desjardins was clearly directed to an improvement in machine learning while the preamble of the instant independent claims state that the training is only a tool to perform the abstract idea of “detecting and suggesting fixes for missing and erroneous property values. Thus, the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
Regarding the Applicant’s assertion that the claimed limitations cannot be mentally performable because of the use of AI, the claimed limitations that do use an AI aren’t being analyzed as mentally performable and instead are being analyzed as mere instructions to apply. When it comes to limitations that do recite AI, the tasks being performed with AI are tasks that can be mentally performable and are merely just using AI for it as mere instruction to apply the exception.
Regarding the Applicant’s assertion that the claimed application uses equipment that is beyond a generic computer equipment, the Examiner disagrees, while the claimed limitations do recite encoders, decoders and multiple neural networks with the same architecture. They are still recited at a high level of generality and are being invoked merely as tools to perform the underlying abstract idea of the correcting property values.
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 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following sections following the 2019 PEG guidelines for analyzing subject matter eligibility.
The analysis below of the claims’ subject matter eligibility follows the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”) and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence, 89 Fed. Reg. 58128-58138 (July 17, 2024) (“2024 AI SME Update”).
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, 1.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1:
preprocessing the received data to convert the digital representation of infrastructure to a graph representation of heterogeneous data having nodes corresponding to each of the plurality of components; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
converting, the graph representation of heterogeneous data to a graph representation of homogeneous data by grouping the nodes of the graph representation of heterogeneous data by type of corresponding component (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
grouping the nodes of the graph representation of heterogeneous data by type of corresponding component, (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
project the property values of the nodes of the respective group into feature vectors that inhabit a common space (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
arranging the nodes and their feature vectors into groups, and (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
performing graph replication on the groups, wherein each of the nodes of the graph representation of homogeneous data is associated with a same number of features; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
converting back, the graph representation of homogeneous data to a reconstructed graph representation of heterogeneous data; and (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
repeating the converting, and converting back until one or more training metrics are satisfied to (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In
particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
receiving, by an application executing on one or more computing devices, data that includes the digital representation of infrastructure, wherein the digital representation of infrastructure has a plurality of components that correspond to counterparts in the infrastructure and that each are associated with one or more property values that represent properties of the counterpart in the infrastructure, wherein different ones of the plurality of components are associated with different numbers and/or selections of property values; (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP 2106.05(g))
by a plurality of component-type specific encoders of the application that each include an individual neural network having a same architecture but different weights, (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
for the nodes of teach group, using a different individual component-type specific encoder of the plurality of component-type specific encoders to (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
processing, by the machine learning model, the feature vectors to teach the machine learning model to predict values for the nodes of the graph representation of homogeneous data; (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
by a plurality of component-type specific decoders of the application that each include an individual neural network having a same architecture (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
train the machine learning model to be capable of detecting and suggesting fixes for missing and erroneous property values in the digital representation of infrastructure. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
by the plurality of component-type specific encoders, the processing by the machine learning model (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
by the plurality of component-type specific decoders (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
receiving, by an application executing on one or more computing devices, data that includes the digital representation of infrastructure, wherein the digital representation of infrastructure has a plurality of components that correspond to counterparts in the infrastructure and that each are associated with one or more property values that represent properties of the counterpart in the infrastructure, wherein different ones of the plurality of components are associated with different numbers and/or selections of property values; (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
by a plurality of component-type specific encoders of the application that each include an individual neural network having a same architecture but different weights, (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
for the nodes of teach group, using a different individual component-type specific encoder of the plurality of component-type specific encoders to (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
processing, by the machine learning model, the feature vectors to teach the machine learning model to predict values for the nodes of the graph representation of homogeneous data; (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
by a plurality of component-type specific decoders of the application that each include an individual neural network having a same architecture (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
train the machine learning model to be capable of detecting and suggesting fixes for missing and erroneous property values in the digital representation of infrastructure. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
by the plurality of component-type specific encoders, the processing by the machine learning model (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
by the plurality of component-type specific decoders (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
The courts have found that generally linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a
particular technological environment or field of use does not qualify as “significantly more”.
(See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
As an ordered whole, the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea of detecting and suggesting fixes for missing and erroneous property values. Nothing in the claim provides significantly more than this. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated. Please see the analysis of claim 1 above. Regarding the method steps recited in claim 1, these steps cover mental processes based on converting data graphs.
Therefore, claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea — mental processes (i.e., observation and evaluation/judgement/opinion).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
applying another graph representation of heterogeneous data to the trained machine learning model and repeating the converting, processing, and converting back to produce final predictions; (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
storing or displaying, by the application, a final digital representation of infrastructure that is based on the final predictions. (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP 2106.05(g))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
applying another graph representation of heterogeneous data to the trained machine learning model and repeating the converting, processing, and converting back to produce final predictions; (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
storing or displaying, by the application, a final digital representation of infrastructure that is based on the final predictions. (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 3 incorporates the rejection of claim 2.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 2 are incorporated. Please see the analysis of claim 2 above. Regarding the method steps recited in claim 2, these steps cover mental processes based on converting data graphs.
Therefore, claim 3 is directed to an abstract idea — mental processes (i.e., observation and evaluation/judgement/opinion).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
replacing missing property values of components in the digital representation of infrastructure with one or more first predicted property values from the final predictions; (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP 2106.05(g))
replacing erroneous property values in the digital representation of infrastructure with one or more second predicted property values from the final predictions (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP 2106.05(g))
wherein the final digital representation of infrastructure uses at least one of the one or more first predicted property values and the one or more second predicted property values. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
replacing missing property values of components in the digital representation of infrastructure with one or more first predicted property values from the final predictions; (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
replacing erroneous property values in the digital representation of infrastructure with one or more second predicted property values from the final predictions (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
wherein the final digital representation of infrastructure uses at least one of the one or more first predicted property values and the one or more second predicted property values. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 4 incorporates the rejection of claim 3.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 3 are incorporated.
correcting one or more of the predicted property values based on the SME review, wherein the final digital representation of infrastructure also uses the corrections to the predicted property values. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
soliciting subject matter expert (SME) review of predicted property values in the final predictions; (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
soliciting subject matter expert (SME) review of predicted property values in the final predictions; (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 5 incorporates the rejection of claim 4.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 4 are incorporated.
comparing a number of corrections to the predicted property values from the SME review to a retraining threshold; and (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
in response to the number of corrections to the predicted property values exceeding the retraining threshold, retraining the machine learning model by repeating the converting, processing, and converting back. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
in response to the number of corrections to the predicted property values exceeding the retraining threshold, retraining the machine learning model by repeating the converting, processing, and converting back. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 6 incorporates the rejection of claim 4.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 4 are incorporated.
for at least one of the corrections to the predicted property values, determining one or more other components are similar to a component whose predicted property value is subject to correction; and (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
applying a corresponding correction to predicted property values of the one or more other components. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
applying a corresponding correction to predicted property values of the one or more other components. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 7 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated. Please see the analysis of claim 1 above. Regarding the method steps recited in claim 1, these steps cover mental processes based on converting data graphs.
Therefore, claim 7 is directed to an abstract idea — mental processes (i.e., observation and evaluation/judgement/opinion).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
wherein each component-type specific encoder of the plurality of component-type specific encoders includes an activation function, a fully connected layer, and an input dropout layer. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein each component-type specific encoder of the plurality of component-type specific encoders includes an activation function, a fully connected layer, and an input dropout layer. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
The courts have found that generally linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a
particular technological environment or field of use does not qualify as “significantly more”.
(See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 8 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated. Please see the analysis of claim 1 above. Regarding the method steps recited in claim 1, these steps cover mental processes based on converting data graphs.
Therefore, claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea — mental processes (i.e., observation and evaluation/judgement/opinion).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
wherein the processing is performed by an autoencoder architecture that utilizes metamorphic truth. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the processing is performed by an autoencoder architecture that utilizes metamorphic truth. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 9 incorporates the rejection of claim 8.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 8 are incorporated. Please see the analysis of claim 8 above. Regarding the method steps recited in claim 8, these steps cover mental processes based on converting data graphs.
Therefore, claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea — mental processes (i.e., observation and evaluation/judgement/opinion).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
wherein the autoencoder architecture includes a plurality of graph attention network (GAT) layers, and the processing further comprises: (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
generating, by a first set of the GAT layers, a representation in latent space from the graph representation of homogeneous data; (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
expanding, by a second set of the GAT layers, the representation in latent space back to the reconstructed graph representation of homogeneous data (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the autoencoder architecture includes a plurality of graph attention network (GAT) layers, and the processing further comprises: (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
generating, by a first set of the GAT layers, a representation in latent space from the graph representation of homogeneous data; (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
expanding, by a second set of the GAT layers, the representation in latent space back to the reconstructed graph representation of homogeneous data (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
The courts have found that generally linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a
particular technological environment or field of use does not qualify as “significantly more”.
(See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 10 incorporates the rejection of claim 9.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 9 are incorporated. Please see the analysis of claim 9 above. Regarding the method steps recited in claim 9, these steps cover mental processes based on converting data graphs.
Therefore, claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea — mental processes (i.e., observation and evaluation/judgement/opinion).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
wherein each of the GAT layers includes a leaky-rectified linear unit (RELU) activation layer, a dropout layer and a fully-connected layer. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein each of the GAT layers includes a leaky-rectified linear unit (RELU) activation layer, a dropout layer and a fully-connected layer. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
The courts have found that generally linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a
particular technological environment or field of use does not qualify as “significantly more”.
(See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 11 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated. Please see the analysis of claim 11 above. Regarding the method steps recited in claim 1, these steps cover mental processes based on converting data graphs.
Therefore, claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea — mental processes (i.e., observation and evaluation/judgement/opinion).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
wherein the digital representation of infrastructure is a built infrastructure model (BIM) or a digital twin of infrastructure. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the digital representation of infrastructure is a built infrastructure model (BIM) or a digital twin of infrastructure. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
The courts have found that generally linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a
particular technological environment or field of use does not qualify as “significantly more”.
(See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 12 incorporates the rejection of claim 11.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 11 are incorporated. Please see the analysis of claim 12 above. Regarding the method steps recited in claim 11, these steps cover mental processes based on converting data graphs.
Therefore, claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea — mental processes (i.e., observation and evaluation/judgement/opinion).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
wherein the infrastructure is an electrical network. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the infrastructure is an electrical network. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
The courts have found that generally linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a
particular technological environment or field of use does not qualify as “significantly more”.
(See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 13
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transitory electronic device readable medium, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1:
preprocess the received data to convert the digital representation of infrastructure to a graph representation of heterogeneous data having nodes corresponding to each of the plurality of components; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
converting, the graph representation of heterogeneous data to a graph representation of heterogeneous data by grouping the nodes of the graph representation of homogeneous data by type of corresponding component and the nodes of each group (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
converting back, the graph representation of homogeneous data to are constructed graph representation of heterogeneous data; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
project the property values of the nodes of the respective group into feature vectors that inhabit a common space, wherein each of the nodes of the graph representation of homogeneous data includes a plurality of nodes that are each is associated with a same number of one or more features; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
produce final predictions; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
receive data that includes a digital representation of infrastructure, wherein the digital representation of infrastructure has a plurality of components that correspond to counterparts in the infrastructure and that each are associated with one or more property values the represent properties of the counterpart in the infrastructure, wherein different ones of the plurality of components are associated with different numbers and/or selections of property values (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP 2106.05(g))
apply unsupervised learning to train a machine learning model using the graph representation of heterogeneous data obtained from the digital representation of infrastructure by (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
by a plurality of component-type specific encoders that each include an individual neural network but different weights, using a different individual component-type specific encoder of the plurality of component-type specific encoders to (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
by a plurality of component-type specific decoders of the application that each include an individual neural network having a same architecture, (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
processing the feature vectors to teach the machine learning model to predict values for the nodes of the graph representation of homogeneous data (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
apply the trained machine learning model again to the graph representation of heterogeneous data obtained from the digital representation of infrastructure to (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
store or display a final digital representation of infrastructure that is based on the final predictions. (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP 2106.05(g))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
receive data that includes a digital representation of infrastructure, wherein the digital representation of infrastructure has a plurality of components that correspond to counterparts in the infrastructure and that each are associated with one or more property values the represent properties of the counterpart in the infrastructure, wherein different ones of the plurality of components are associated with different numbers and/or selections of property values (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
apply unsupervised learning to train a machine learning model using the graph representation of heterogeneous data obtained from the digital representation of infrastructure by (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
by a plurality of component-type specific encoders that each include an individual neural network but different weights, using a different individual component-type specific encoder of the plurality of component-type specific encoders to (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
by a plurality of component-type specific decoders of the application that each include an individual neural network having a same architecture, (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
processing the feature vectors to teach the machine learning model to predict values for the nodes of the graph representation of homogeneous data (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
apply the trained machine learning model again to the graph representation of heterogeneous data obtained from the digital representation of infrastructure to (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
store or display a final digital representation of infrastructure that is based on the final predictions. (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
The courts have found that generally linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a
particular technological environment or field of use does not qualify as “significantly more”.
(See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
As an ordered whole, the claim is directed to the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea of detecting and suggesting fixes for missing and erroneous property values. Nothing in the claim provides significantly more than this. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 incorporates the rejection of claim 13.
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transitory electronic device readable medium, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 13 are incorporated. Please see the analysis of claim 13 above. Regarding the method steps recited in claim 13, these steps cover mental processes based on converting data graphs.
Therefore, claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea — mental processes (i.e., observation and evaluation/judgement/opinion).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
replace missing property values of components in the digital representation of infrastructure with one or more first predicted property values from the final predictions; (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP 2106.05(g))
replace erroneous property values in the digital representation of infrastructure with one or more second predicted property values from the final predictions, (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP 2106.05(g))
wherein the final digital representation of infrastructure uses at least one of the one or more first predicted property values and the one or more second predicted property values. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
replace missing property values of components in the digital representation of infrastructure with one or more first predicted property values from the final predictions; (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
replace erroneous property values in the digital representation of infrastructure with one or more second predicted property values from the final predictions, (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
wherein the final digital representation of infrastructure uses at least one of the one or more first predicted property values and the one or more second predicted property values. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 15 incorporates the rejection of claim 14.
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transitory electronic device readable medium, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 14 are incorporated.
correct one or more of the predicted property values of the final predictions based on the SME review, wherein the final digital representation of infrastructure also uses the corrections to the predicted property values. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
solicit subject matter expert (SME) review of predicted property values in the final predictions; (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
solicit subject matter expert (SME) review of predicted property values in the final predictions; (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 16 incorporates the rejection of claim 15.
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transitory electronic device readable medium, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 15 are incorporated.
compare a number of corrections to the predicted property values from the SME review to a retraining threshold; and (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
in response to the number of corrections to the predicted property values exceeding the retraining threshold, retrain the machine learning model. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
in response to the number of corrections to the predicted property values exceeding the retraining threshold, retrain the machine learning model. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 17 incorporates the rejection of claim 15.
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transitory electronic device readable medium, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 15 are incorporated.
for at least one of the corrections to the predicted property values, determine one or more other components are similar to a component whose predicted property value is subject to correction; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
apply a corresponding correction to predicted property values of the one or more other components. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
apply a corresponding correction to predicted property values of the one or more other components. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 18 incorporates the rejection of claim 15.
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transitory electronic device readable medium, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 15 are incorporated. Please see the analysis of claim 15 above. Regarding the method steps recited in claim 15, these steps cover mental processes based on converting data graphs.
Therefore, claim 18 is directed to an abstract idea — mental processes (i.e., observation and evaluation/judgement/opinion).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
wherein the processing is performed by an autoencoder architecture that utilizes metamorphic truth. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the processing is performed by an autoencoder architecture that utilizes metamorphic truth. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 19 incorporates the rejection of claim 18.
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transitory electronic device readable medium, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 18 are incorporated. Please see the analysis of claim 18 above. Regarding the method steps recited in claim 18, these steps cover mental processes based on converting data graphs.
Therefore, claim 19 is directed to an abstract idea — mental processes (i.e., observation and evaluation/judgement/opinion).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
wherein the autoencoder architecture includes a plurality of graph attention network (GAT) layers, and the processing comprises; (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
generating, by a first set of the GAT layers, a representation in latent space from the graph representation of homogeneous data (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
expanding, by a second set of the GAT layers, the representation in latent space back to the reconstructed graph representation of homogeneous data. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the autoencoder architecture includes a plurality of graph attention network (GAT) layers, and the processing comprises; (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
generating, by a first set of the GAT layers, a representation in latent space from the graph representation of homogeneous data (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
expanding, by a second set of the GAT layers, the representation in latent space back to the reconstructed graph representation of homogeneous data. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
The courts have found that generally linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a
particular technological environment or field of use does not qualify as “significantly more”.
(See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 20 incorporates the rejection of claim 13.
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transitory electronic device readable medium, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 13 are incorporated. Please see the analysis of claim 13 above. Regarding the method steps recited in claim 13, these steps cover mental processes based on converting data graphs.
Therefore, claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea — mental processes (i.e., observation and evaluation/judgement/opinion).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
wherein the digital representation of infrastructure is a built infrastructure model (BIM)or a digital twin of an electrical network. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the digital representation of infrastructure is a built infrastructure model (BIM)or a digital twin of an electrical network. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
The courts have found that generally linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a
particular technological environment or field of use does not qualify as “significantly more”.
(See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 21
Step 1: The claim recites a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1:
preprocessing the received data to convert the digital representation of infrastructure to a graph representation of heterogeneous data having nodes corresponding to each of the plurality of components; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
converting, the graph representation of heterogeneous data to a graph representation of homogeneous data by grouping the nodes of the graph representation of heterogeneous data by type of corresponding component (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
processing, the feature vectors to predict values for the nodes of the graph representation of homogeneous data; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
converting back, the graph representation of homogeneous data to a reconstructed graph representation of heterogeneous data (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
replacing missing or incorrect property values with predicted property values from the reconstructed graph representation of heterogeneous data; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
receiving, by an application executing on one or more computing devices, data that includes the digital representation of infrastructure wherein the digital representation of infrastructure has a plurality of components that correspond to counterparts in the infrastructure and that each are associated with one or more property values that represent properties of the counterpart in the infrastructure, wherein different ones of the plurality of components are associated with different numbers and/or selections of property values; (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP 2106.05(g))
by a plurality of component-type specific encoders of the application that each include an individual neural network (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
for the nodes of each group, using a different individual component-type specific encoder of the plurality of component-type specific encoders to project the property values of the nodes of the respective group into feature vectors that inhabit a common space, wherein each of the nodes of the graph representation of homogeneous data is associated with a same number of features; (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
by the machine learning model (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
by a plurality of decoders of the application that each include an individual neural network (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
the digital representation of infrastructure (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
storing or displaying the final digital representation of infrastructure. (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP 2106.05(g))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
receiving, by an application executing on one or more computing devices, data that includes the digital representation of infrastructure wherein the digital representation of infrastructure has a plurality of components that correspond to counterparts in the infrastructure and that each are associated with one or more property values that represent properties of the counterpart in the infrastructure, wherein different ones of the plurality of components are associated with different numbers and/or selections of property values; (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
by a plurality of component-type specific encoders of the application that each include an individual neural network (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
for the nodes of each group, using a different individual component-type specific encoder of the plurality of component-type specific encoders to project the property values of the nodes of the respective group into feature vectors that inhabit a common space (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
by the machine learning model (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
by a plurality of decoders of the application that each include an individual neural network (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
the digital representation of infrastructure (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
storing or displaying the final digital representation of infrastructure. (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
The courts have found that generally linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a
particular technological environment or field of use does not qualify as “significantly more”.
(See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
As an ordered whole, the claim is directed to the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea of detecting and suggesting fixes for missing and erroneous property values. Nothing in the claim provides significantly more than this. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 22 incorporates the rejection of claim 21.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 21 are incorporated.
correcting one or more of the predicted property values based on the SME review, wherein the replacing missing or incorrect property values in the digital representation uses the corrections to the predicted property values. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
soliciting subject matter expert (SME) review of predicted property values from the reconstructed graph representation of heterogeneous data (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
soliciting subject matter expert (SME) review of predicted property values from the reconstructed graph representation of heterogeneous data (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 23 incorporates the rejection of claim 22.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 22 are incorporated.
comparing a number of corrections to the predicted property values from the SME review to a retraining threshold (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
in response to the number of corrections to the predicted property values exceeding the retraining threshold, retraining the machine learning model. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
in response to the number of corrections to the predicted property values exceeding the retraining threshold, retraining the machine learning model. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 24 incorporates the rejection of claim 22.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 22 are incorporated.
for at least one of the corrections to the predicted property values, determining one or more other components are similar to a component whose predicted property value is subject to correction (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
applying a corresponding correction to predicted property values of the one or more other components. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
applying a corresponding correction to predicted property values of the one or more other components. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 25 incorporates the rejection of claim 21.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 21 are incorporated. Please see the analysis of claim 21 above. Regarding the method steps recited in claim 21, these steps cover mental processes based on converting data graphs.
Therefore, claim 25 is directed to an abstract idea — mental processes (i.e., observation and evaluation/judgement/opinion).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
wherein the digital representation of infrastructure is a built infrastructure model (BIM) or a digital twin of an electrical network, the components include electrical components of the electrical network, and the properties include electrical properties of electrical components. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the digital representation of infrastructure is a built infrastructure model (BIM) or a digital twin of an electrical network, the components include electrical components of the electrical network, and the properties include electrical properties of electrical components. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
The courts have found that generally linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a
particular technological environment or field of use does not qualify as “significantly more”.
(See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
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 KYLE ALLMAN THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3671. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 6 a.m. - 3 p.m. 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.
/K.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights