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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The action is in response to claims dated 8/25/2025.
Claims pending in the case: 14-21
Cancelled claims: 1-13
Claims added: 18-21
This is a transferred case. The previous office action was done by examiner Isis Marie Black.
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.
Claim(s) 14-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step1: determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If YES, proceed to Step 2A, broken into two prongs.
Step 2A, Prong 1: determine whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If YES, the analysis proceeds to the second prong
Step 2A, Prong 2: determine whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If NOT, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B).
Step 2B: If any element or combination of elements in the claim is 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.
Step 1 Analysis
According to the first part of the analysis, the instant case all claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1, Step 2A Prong 2, and Step 2B Analysis
Independent Claim 14 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
b) using at least one of a dependency parsing process, a constituency parsing process, and a lexically constrained paraphrasing process on the labeled sentence to generate augmented training data (Parsing and augmenting is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation. This is a recitation of a mental process.);
c) selecting a first scoring function from a plurality of scoring functions to order a training set based on difficulty (a human can select a desired first scoring function from a plurality of scoring functions; This is a recitation of a mental process.);
e) determining a respective performance metric for each of the scoring functions in the plurality by evaluating a performance of the intermediate model … (determining a performance metric based on an observation of output results is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation. This is a recitation of a mental process.);
f) selecting another scoring function from the plurality of scoring functions to order the training set, the another scoring function being selected based on the determined performance metric of the second scoring function (a human can select a desired first scoring function from a plurality of scoring functions; This is a recitation of a mental process.);
Claim 14 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
a) receiving an original labeled sentence as input, the labeled sentence including entities (This is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Moreover, sending, receiving, storing and retrieving information is well-understood, routine, conventional as evidenced by the court cases cited at MPEP 2106.05(d), example i. Receiving or transmitting data and iv. Storing and retrieving information and MPEP 2106.05(g), example iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions);
d) training the relation extraction model using a curriculum learning process by feeding the scored training set to the relation extraction model in an order determined by the selected scoring function to generate an intermediate model (This high level recitation of training of the model is a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception. It only appears to amount to the use of a generically recited, off the shelf component, as a tool to implement the process and is not an inventive concept. Since the model is used merely as a tool to implement an existing process, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).);
g) training the relation extraction model again using the scored training set data from the another scoring function(This high level recitation of training of the model is a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception. It only appears to amount to the use of a generically recited, off the shelf component, as a tool to implement the process and is not an inventive concept. Since the model is used merely as a tool to implement an existing process, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).);
These claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims recite at least the abstract idea identified above in the claim upon which it depends and recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination with the additional elements from the claim upon which it depends, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 15 pertains to a high level model training (This high level recitation of training of the model is a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception. It only appears to amount to the use of a generically recited, off the shelf component, as a tool to implement the process and is not an inventive concept. Since the model is used merely as a tool to implement an existing process, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).);
Dependent claims 16-18 pertain to types of data being used (The collection and use of data of a particular type or source is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05 (h).)
Dependent claims 9-21 pertain to limiting the applied processes and techniques being used (This is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05 (h)).
The dependent claims therefore, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea
Hence these claims are rejected as being abstract.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection has been fully considered but found to be not persuasive. These rejections are respectfully maintained.
The applicant’s argue that “The claimed invention provides a clear improvement to computer-implemented machine learning model”. The applicant argues “even if the processes for selecting a scoring function or evaluating performance are understood to be abstract (as alleged by the Office), these features are integrated in a practical application by the non-abstract process of using training a machine learning model to predict sentence-level relations”.
The examiner finds that the limitations, at least as claimed, do not have specifics that may be considered as an improvement beyond the abstract idea of selecting different scoring functions to train a model. The limitations provide no specifics on the plurality of scoring functions on how the scoring is done, nor does the limitations specify how performance is to be used in the selecting process of the scoring function to achieve an improvement that may be considered as significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations merely claim to use a different scoring function for further training. An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome (MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.05(a)). The examiner finds that the limitations as claimed does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of training a model using different data.
The examiner suggests amending the limitations to include specifics on the plurality of scoring functions and criteria for selection of one function over another to clarify the limitations and add the novelty of the invention that may be considered as significantly more to overcome this rejection.
Applicants’ prior art arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. No prior art was found to teach or make obvious all the limitations as claimed. Since the prior arts fail to disclose, suggest or teach all the claimed limitations, prior art rejection has not been presented at this time.
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 extension fee 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 MANDRITA BRAHMACHARI whose telephone number is (571)272-9735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11 am to 8 pm EST.
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, Tamara Kyle can be reached at 571 272 4241. 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.
/Mandrita Brahmachari/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144
Prosecution Insights