Detailed Action
This action is in response to the RCE filed on 02/03/2026 for the amended claims filed 01/13/2026 for application 17/579,877, in which:
Claims 1, 15, and 16 are independent claims.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 11-13, and 15-17 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/03/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/09/2025, 01/07/2026, and 02/15/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 .
Regarding the previous Claim Objections:
Applicant's amendments to the Claims 5, 7, 12, and 17 overcome the previous objections due to informalities. Please note the new Claim Objection below within the Office Action.
Regarding the 35 USC § 103 Rejections:
Applicant's amendments to the independent Claims overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections. More information below within the Examiner Comments section.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC § 101 Rejections:
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the previous office action have been fully considered, but are unpersuasive.
Applicant disagrees and traverses (Pages 17-18) the rejections of the Claims 1-20 as the claims are not directed to the "mental processes" and "mathematical relationships" groups of abstract ideas. However, assuming arguendo that the Office considers the claims to be directed to a judicial exception of any kind and for the sake of compact prosecution, elements of claims 1-20, as amended herein, include additional elements that integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections for the amended claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1) and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2). The claims recites abstract ideas a-m; where the abstract ideas are evaluations/judgements that can be performed in the human mind (or by a human using pen and paper) or a mathematical relationship between variables and/or numbers using a mathematical formula/equations. The independent claims are no more detailed than determining an expectation of a variable via sampling graph distributions with specific details/restrictions where the computer implemented method performs the comparisons/differences/mathematical relationships to determine a value (which is the estimated treatment effect) to perform the treatment. The additional elements noted within Step 2A Prong 2 are unable to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (when evaluated individually and holistically) as they are merely restricting the abstract idea to a specific technological environment. Thus, the additional elements are not able to integrate the abstract ideas in a practical application as they fall within MPEP 2106.05. The claims are directed towards the improvement of an abstract idea. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For the reasons given above and in the rejections below, the rejection to all Claims (including Claim 1, similar independent claims, and all dependent Claims) are maintained. More specific details are discussed below within the 35 USC § 101 Rejections.
Applicant further supports their assertions (Pages 17-21) by noting Examples 47-49 in 2024 AI SME to point out integrating judicial exceptions into practical application via improvements in the technical field which is alleged the amended Claim provides. The applicant also notes the specification to note improvements; thus, the amended independent claim improves the technology recited in the amended independent claim. Applicant further support their assertions by noting that the claimed invention addresses a known technical deficiency or problem that is itself rooted in computer technology and improves the functioning of end-to-end inference systems; with support from the specification. Applicant further asserts that the claimed invention addresses a known technical deficiency or problem that is itself rooted in computer technology; with support from the specification.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The pending Claims are directed to a judicial exception due to reciting limitations which fall within the “mathematical concepts” and “mental processes” group of abstract ideas; where the judicial exception is unable to be directed to significantly more than the judicial exception due to the pending Claims not including additional elements that contribute to an “inventive concept”. As the claim recites an abstract idea, the claim is not similar to Example 47 which recites no abstract ideas. Example 48 does recite multiple abstract ideas that fall within the Mathematical Concepts or Mental Processes groups of abstract ideas; however, Example 48 is able to provide improvements to the functioning of computer by implementing extraction and then applying the extracted features to generate an output for an intended result/purpose. The newly created mixed speech signal in Example 48 is created by certain requirements and then transmitted. Example 49 exemplifies Claim 2 integrating Claim 1 via application of the treatment being a specific type of treatment (Compound X eye drops) which is unlike the amended independent claim; which is merely actioning a treatment on a real-world entity based on variables with no further specificity of the treatment. Due to the additional elements of the independent claims falling under MPEP 2106.05, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the specific details are discussed below within the Examiner’s Responses and 35 USC § 101 Rejections. The claims are directed towards the improvement of an abstract idea. Improvements to an abstract idea are still considered to an abstract idea. The claims are directed towards the improvement of an abstract idea. Improvements to an abstract idea are still considered to an abstract idea. Additionally, the Claims does not reflect alleged improvement in the functioning of a computer or hardware processor rather the additional elements merely are restricting the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more. The office action establishes a proper and well-supported prima facie case as the claims are explained to be not patentable via the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility steps within MPEP 2106; thus, the additional elements noted within Step 2A Prong 2 are unable to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (when evaluated individually and holistically). The limitations are unable to provide the alleged improvement. The limitations are unable to provide improvement as they are currently being evaluated as either abstract idea(s) or additional elements that fall within MPEP 2106.05. The claim is not patent eligible. Although the Claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the Claims.
MPEP 2106.05(a) recites:
After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology … the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification
…
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below.
Applicant fails to show how any alleged technical improvement would be provided by anything more than the judicial exception on its own. Additionally, applicant fails to show how the claim includes components or steps that would provide the alleged improvement described in the specification. By MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), "the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished". The rejection follows the steps of the analysis as laid out in the MPEP which was followed for the previous and current examination (see MPEP 2106). Moreover, the examiner maintains that the Claim does not impose any meaningful limits on the judicial exception. As noted in the rejection, the Claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to an integration of the identified abstract idea(s) into a practical application, thus the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant asserts (Page 22) that amended independent claims (and dependent claims due to dependency) fully satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §101 and are patentable thereunder because the amended claims are directed to statutory subject matter. The Applicant respectfully requests that the present rejection of such claim be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments regarding the other independent and dependent claims rely upon the same assertions as with respect to Claim 1, and are thus likewise unpersuasive. Therefore, for the reasons given above and in the rejections below, the rejection to all Claims (including Claim 1, similar independent claims, and all dependent Claims) are maintained. More specific details are discussed below within the 35 USC § 101 Rejections.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 13, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “_” within the limitation “… target variable_based … ” which appears to be a typographical error.
Claim 2 recites “_” within the limitation “… target_variable to … of_embeddings of …” which appears to be a typographical error.
Claim 5 recites “_” within the limitation “… an input data point_of…” which appears to be a typographical error.
Claim 7 recites “_” within the limitation “… the_decoder …” which appears to be a typographical error.
Claim 9 recites “_” within the limitation “… of the_observed variable… ” which appears to be a typographical error.
Claim 13 recites “_” within the limitation “… target_variable … ” which appears to be a typographical error.
Claim 16 recites “_” within the limitation “… on the target variable,_the estimating… ” which appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required. For the purposes of examination, the claims are being interpreted as spaces (“ ”) instead of underscores (“-_”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the term "or" in "… fixing …; or simulating …". The term “or an” in Claim 13 is an unclear phrase which renders the claim indefinite as the limitation notes fixing or simulating; where Claim 13 is dependent on Independent Claim 1 which recites “… simulating … ; … fixing …”. It is unclear if simulating and fixing are supposed to be included due to Claim 1 reciting both being required. For the purpose of applying prior art, the or is being interpreted as and.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 1 recites a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 1 further recites the method comprising of:
sampling, from a causal graph distribution, a first sampled causal graph having nodes and edges … (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to sample a causal graph from a graph distribution describing different possible graphs)
… the causal graph distribution being a probabilistic distribution of describing possible causal graphs based only on observational data, the causal graph distribution comprising a matrix of a first probability of an existence of a potential edge between a pair of the nodes and a second probability of a causal direction of the potential edge (a mathematical relationship between variables and/or numbers using a mathematical formula/equations)
the sampling comprising selecting, from the causal graph distribution, a graph having pseudorandom edges based in part on the first probability of an existence of a potential edge between the pair of the nodes and the second probability of a causal direction of the potential edge (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to sample by selecting a specific graph from a specific distribution )
simulating a simulated value of the target variable based on the first sampled causal graph (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to simulate a targeted variable value based on a sampled causal graph)
estimating a treatment effect from the intervened-on variable on the target variable, the estimating comprising: (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to estimate a treatment effect from the intervened-on variable on another for the target variable)
selecting the target variable to be simulated (a human being can mentally apply evaluation and make a judgement to select a target variable to be simulated)
fixing an input value of the intervened-on variable to a specified value (a human being can mentally apply evaluation and fix a intervened-on input value to a specified value)
observing a first simulated value of the target variable (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to observe the corresponding simulated value of the target variable)
sampling, from the causal graph distribution, a second sampled causal graph from the causal graph distribution (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to sample a causal graph from a graph distribution describing different possible graphs)
in the second sampled causal graph, observing a second simulated value of the target variable (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to observe the corresponding simulated value of the target variable)
determining an expectation of the target variable by averaging the first simulated value and the second simulated value, the averaging being based on estimating an expectation of a probabilistic distribution of simulated values of the target variable (a mathematical relationship between variables and/or numbers using a mathematical formula/equations)
based on the expectation of the target variable, determine an estimated treatment effect (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to determine the estimated treatment affected based on a determination of a target variables expectation)
actioning a treatment on a real-world entity based on the intervened-on variable modeling a treatment on a real-world entity, on the target variable modeling an effect of the treatment applied to the real-world entity, and on the estimated treatment effect being within a range (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to action a treatment based on a specific value on a specific entity)
Claim 1 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mental processes” and “mathematical concepts” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited consists of:
A computer-implemented method comprising: (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
a node of the nodes representing an intervened-on variable, an edge of the edges representing a causal relationship between the intervened-on variable represented by the node and a target variable represented by a target node … (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements recited, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Additional elements a and b are only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 2:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 2 recites the method of Claim 1. Claim 1 is a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 2 further recites:
the sampling the first sampled causal graph or the second sampled causal graph from the causal graph distribution (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to perform the sampling of a causal graph from a specific graph distribution)
the selecting of the target variable from the first sampled causal graph or the second sampled causal graph, identifying a plurality of parents of the target variable in the first sampled causal graph or the second sampled causal graph … (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to perform the selecting of the selected variable from a specific sampled causal graph and identify which other variables are parents of the selected variable)
… produce a combined embedding (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to produce a combined embedding)
… generate the simulated value (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to generate the simulated value)
Claim 2 thus recites an abstract idea (that fall into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited consists of:
using at least in part a machine learning (ML) model to … (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
the ML model comprising an encoder and a decoder for a variable, the encoder being arranged to encode an input value of the variable into an embedding, and the ML model further comprising a selector, a combiner and a demultiplexer (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
… performing, using the selector … (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
… using the demultiplexer … (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
… inputting a plurality of embeddings of the identified plurality of parents into the combiner to … inputting … the combined embedding into the decoder of the target variable to … (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, by MPEP 2106.05(g))
selecting the target variable comprises selecting … the target variable and observing the first simulated value of the target variable … comprises … (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
… causing the decoder of the target variable to … based on the plurality of embeddings of the plurality of parents of the target variable (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements recited, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Additional elements a, c-d, and g are merely applying the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide significantly more. Additional elements b and f are only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide significantly more. Additional element e falls within MPEP 2106.05(d) as well-understood, routine and conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 3:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 3 recites the method of Claim 2. Claim 2 is a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 3 further recites … the combined embedding comprises a sum of the plurality of embeddings of the plurality of parents … (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to produce combined embeddings comprising a summation of specific embeddings). Claim 3 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no new additional elements recited.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no new additional elements recited. The judicial exception alone does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 4:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 4 recites the method of Claim 2. Claim 2 is a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 4 does not recite any additional abstract ideas and only inherits the abstract ideas from Claim 2. Claim 4 thus recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sole additional element recited consists of wherein the encoder comprises a first neural network and the decoder comprises a second neural network (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception because the new sole additional element recited, alone or in
combination, does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional element is
only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which
cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 5:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 5 recites the method of Claim 2. Claim 2 is a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 5 further recites for the input variable in the training data, selecting … the input variable … based on selecting the input variable, generating a reconstructed value of the input variable, the reconstructed value for the input data point thus forming a corresponding reconstructed data point (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to set a variable as the selected variable to generate a respective reconstructed value for a specific selected input variable). Claim 5 thus recites an abstract idea (that fall into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited consists of:
prior to the determination of the estimated treatment effect, training the ML model … (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
… the training comprising, for an input data point of a plurality of input data points in training data, the input data point comprising a different input value for an input variable (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
over the plurality of input data points, simultaneously training the matrix of the first probability and the second probability in the causal graph distribution, the encoder, and the decoder to minimize a measure of difference between the input data point of the plurality of input data points and the reconstructed data point (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements recited, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Additional element a is merely applying the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide significantly more. Additional elements b and c are only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 6:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 6 recites the method of Claim 5. Claim 5 is a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 6 does not recite any additional abstract ideas and only inherits the abstract ideas from Claim 5. Claim 6 thus recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sole additional element recited consists of wherein the measure of difference is an ELBO function (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception because the new sole additional element recited, alone or in
combination, does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional element is
only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which
cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 7:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 7 recites the method of Claim 2. Claim 2 is a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 7 further recites:
… infer the unobserved variable from the observable variable (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to infer the unobserved variable from the observable variable)
averaging the first simulated value and the second simulated value of the target variable over the first sampled causal graph and the second sampled causal graph further comprising determining an average treatment effect, by:
estimating a first expectation of a probabilistic distribution of the target variable given the specified value of the intervened-on variable;
estimating a second expectation of the probabilistic distribution of the target variable without the specified value of the intervened-on variable or with a different value of the intervened-on variable; and
determining a difference between the first expectation of the probabilistic distribution of the target variable and the second expectation of the probabilistic distribution of the target variable; and based on the difference, the average treatment effect being the estimated treatment effect of the target variable (a mathematical relationship between variables and/or numbers using a mathematical formula/equations)
the average treatment effect comprises a conditional average treatment effect (a mathematical relationship between variables and/or numbers using a mathematical formula/equations)
Claim 7 thus recites an abstract idea (that fall into the “mental processes” or “mathematical concepts” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited consists of:
the ML model including an inference network: disposed between an unobserved variable and an observable variable, and configured to …: (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
the first expectation of the probabilistic distribution of the target variable is based on the specified value of the intervened-on variable conditional on the input value of the observed variable, the observable variable being distinct from the intervened-on variable (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
the second expectation of the probabilistic distribution of the target ignores the specified value of the intervened-on variable, or is based on a different value the intervened-on variable, but is still conditional on the input value of the observed variable (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
the inference network is: trained simultaneously with the encoder, the decoder and the causal graph distribution; or trained in a subsequent training phase after training the encoder, decoder and the causal graph distribution, in response to a query specifying the input value of the intervened-on variable and requesting to make the estimation, the subsequent training phase being performed by: simulating data from a sub-model, the sub-model comprising the ML model without the inference network, applying the input value specified in the query, estimating the conditional average treatment effect by inputting the value of the observed variable into the inference network, and returning, based on the estimate of the conditional average treatment effect, a distribution over an effects from which the estimated treatment effect is computed (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements recited, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Additional element a-d are only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 8:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 8 recites the method of Claim 2. Claim 2 is a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 8 further recites:
the averaging comprising determining an average treatment effect, by:
estimating a first expectation of a probabilistic distribution of the target variable given the specified value of the intervened-on variable;
estimating a second expectation of a probabilistic distribution of the target variable ignoring the specified value of the intervened-on variable or with a different value of the intervened-on variable;
determining a difference between the first expectation of the probabilistic distribution
of the target variable and second expectation of the probabilistic distribution of the target variable, and based on the determined difference between the first expectation of the probabilistic distribution of the target variable and second expectation of the probabilistic distribution of the target variable, the average treatment effect being the estimated treatment effect of the target variable (a mathematical relationship between variables and/or numbers using a mathematical formula/equations)
Claim 8 thus recites an abstract idea (that fall into the “mental processes” or “mathematical concepts” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no new additional elements recited.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no new additional elements recited. The judicial exception alone does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 9:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 9 recites the method of Claim 8. Claim 8 is a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 9 further recites … infer the unobserved variable from the observable variable (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to infer the unobserved variable from the observable variable). Claim 9 thus recites an abstract idea (that fall into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited consists of:
… the ML model further comprises an inference network disposed between an unobserved variable and an observable variable, configured to …; the average treatment effect being estimated comprises a conditional average treatment effect (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
the first expectation of the probabilistic distribution of the target variable is based on the specified value of the intervened-on variable and conditional on the input value of the observed variable other than the intervened-on variable (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
the second expectation of the probabilistic distribution of the target variable ignores the specified value of the intervened-on variable or is based on a different value of the intervened-on variable but is still conditional on the input value of said at least one observed variable (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements recited, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Additional elements a-c are only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 10:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 10 recites the method of Claim 9. Claim 9 is a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 10 does not recite any additional abstract ideas and only inherits the abstract ideas from Claim 9. Claim 10 thus recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sole additional element recited consists of wherein the inference network comprises a neural network (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception because the new sole additional element recited, alone or in
combination, does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional element is
only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which
cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 11:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 11 recites the method of Claim 1. Claim 1 is a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 11 further recites:
observing a first simulated value of the target variable further comprises observing a first casual effect propagating throughout the first sampled causal graph (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to observe the corresponding simulated value of the target variable by observing a specific causal effect)
observing a second simulated value of the target variable further comprises observing a second casual effect propagating throughout the first sampled causal graph (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to observe the corresponding simulated value of the target variable by observing a specific causal effect)
Claim 11 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sole additional element recited consists of the expectation of the target variable is based in part on the first casual effect and the second casual effect (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception because the new sole additional element recited, alone or in
combination, does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional element is
only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which
cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 12:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 12 recites the method of Claim 11. Claim 11 is a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 12 does not recite any additional abstract ideas and only inherits the abstract ideas from Claim 11. Claim 12 thus recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sole additional element recited consists of wherein one of: the real-world entity comprises a living being, the effect comprises a symptom of the living being, the treatment comprises a medical treatment to the living being; or the real-world entity comprises a mechanical, electrical or electronic device, a system, or an item of software, the effect comprises a state of the device, the system or the software, and the treatment comprises an act of maintaining, debugging, upgrading or controlling the device, the system or the software (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception because the new sole additional element recited, alone or in
combination, does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional element is
only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which
cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 13:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 13 recites the method of Claim 1. Claim 1 is a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 13 does not recite any additional abstract ideas and only inherits the abstract ideas from Claim 1. Claim 13 thus recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sole additional element recited consists of wherein fixing the input value of the intervened-on variable to the specified value further comprises disregarding a second edge directed from a parent of the intervened-on variable into the intervened-on variable in the first sampled causal graph; or simulating the simulated value of the target variable further comprises: generating a noiseless value of the target variable, sampling a random noise value, and combining the noiseless value with the sampled random noise value to produce the simulated value of the target variable (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception because the new sole additional element recited, alone or in
combination, does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional element is
only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which
cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 14:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 14 recites the method of Claim 2. Claim 2 is a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 14 does not recite any additional abstract ideas and only inherits the abstract ideas from Claim 2. Claim 14 thus recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited consists of:
wherein the ML model is hosted on a server system of a first party, the server system comprising a server unit at a site, and the method further comprising: (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
the server system of the first party providing an application programming interface (an API) enabling a second party to contact the server system of the first party via a network (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
the server system of the first party receiving a request from the second party over the network via the API (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, by MPEP 2106.05(g))
the server system of the first party, in response to the request determining the estimated treatment effect on the target variable; and the server system of the first party returning the estimated treatment effect to the second party over the network via the API (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, by MPEP 2106.05(g))
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements recited, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Additional elements a and b are only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide significantly more. Additional elements c and d fall within MPEP 2106.05(d) as well-understood, routine and conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 15:
Claim 15 incorporates substantively all the limitations of Claim 1 in a computer program embodied on a non-transitory computer-readable storage (thus a manufacture) and further recites configured so as when run on a processor to perform a method comprising (these claim limitations appear to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f)) and does not appear to integrate the abstract idea into a particular application; thus, the claim is subject matter ineligible as it does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, alone or in combination, and do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself); thus, Claim 15 is rejected for reasons set forth in the rejections of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16:
Claim 16 incorporates substantively all the limitations of Claim 1 in a system (thus a machine) and further recites a processing apparatus comprising a processor; and a memory comprising a memory unit, wherein the memory stores code arranged to run on the processing apparatus and being configured so as when run to perform a method comprising (these claim limitations appear to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f)) and does not appear to integrate the abstract idea into a particular application; thus, the claim is subject matter ineligible as it does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, alone or in combination, and do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself); thus, Claim 16 is rejected for reasons set forth in the rejections of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 17 recites the method of Claim 2. Claim 2 is a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 17 further recites determining an expectation of the target variable by averaging the first simulated value and the second simulated value of the target variable over the first sampled causal graph … (a mathematical relationship between variables and/or numbers using a mathematical formula/equations). Claim 17 thus recites an abstract idea (that fall into the “mathematical concepts” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sole additional element recited consists of … the second sampled causal graph enabling an end-to-end causal inference further comprising using the ML model for causal discovery and to determine the estimated treatment effect (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the new sole additional element recited, alone or in combination, does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional element is merely applying the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 18:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 18 recites the method of Claim 17. Claim 17 is a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 18 further recites … for causal discovery and to determine the estimated treatment effect further comprising: consuming the observational data in an observational environment; and estimating an average treatment effect or a conditional average treatment effect (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to consume specific data in an specific environment and estimate an average treatment or perform the statistical analysis for a conditional average treatment effect). Claim 18 thus recites an abstract idea (that fall into the “mental processes” or “mathematical concepts” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no new additional elements recited.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no new additional elements recited. The judicial exception alone does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 19:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 19 recites the method of Claim 1. Claim 1 is a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 19 does not recite any additional abstract ideas and only inherits the abstract ideas from Claim 1. Claim 19 thus recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sole additional element recited consists of the first sampled causal graph further comprising: a matrix having, for the intervened-on variable and the target variable, a first binary element and a second binary element, the first binary element representing an existence of an edge between the intervened-on variable and the target variable, and the second binary element representing a direction of an existing edge (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception because the new sole additional element recited, alone or in
combination, does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional element is
only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which
cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 20:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 20 recites the method of Claim 1. Claim 1 is a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 20 does not recite any additional abstract ideas and only inherits the abstract ideas from Claim 1. Claim 20 thus recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sole additional element recited consists of the first sampled causal graph is a first directed acyclic graph; and the second sampled causal graph is a second directed acyclic graph (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception because the new sole additional element recited, alone or in
combination, does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional element is
only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which
cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Examiner Comments
The claims have been searched but no prior art which anticipates or renders the independent claims obvious have been found.
Claims 1-20 are currently rejected under 35 USC § 101 only. A complete and thorough search was performed for these claims; however no prior art was uncovered that teach or fairly suggest the features recited claims. Specifically, none of the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fairly discloses the limitations of the independent Claim 1 and its dependent Claims. In particular, the limitations in Claim 1:
…
the causal graph distribution comprising a matrix of a first probability of an existence of a potential edge between a pair of the nodes and a second probability of a causal direction of the potential edge,
…
the sampling comprising selecting, from the causal graph distribution, a graph having pseudorandom edges based in part on the first probability of an existence of a potential edge between the pair of the nodes and the second probability of a causal direction of the potential edge;
…
determining an expectation of the target variable by averaging the first simulated value and the second simulated value, the averaging being based on estimating an expectation of a probabilistic distribution of simulated values of the target variable; and
…
actioning a treatment on a real-world entity based on the intervened-on variable modeling a treatment on a real-world entity, on the target variable modeling an effect of the treatment applied to the real-world entity, and on the estimated treatment effect being within a range.
The closest prior arts of record are: Kuipers et. al, “Efficient Sampling and Structure Learning of Bayesian Networks”, which discloses utilizing Bayesian DAG Sampling to perform sampling of causal graphs from causal graph distributions but does not teach intervention/treatment-effects/probability matrix including edge directionality with edge existence. Sanchez-Martin et al., “VACA: Design of Variational Graph Autoencoders for Interventional and Counterfactual Queries” discloses observational data, interventional data, the VACA methodology to infer based off causal graphs and simulation of target variables. Nevertheless, Kuipers/Sanchez-Martin in combination do not teach the specific matrix and . Yu et al., “DAG-GNN: DAG Structure Learning with Graph Neural Networks” teaches causal discovery and specific structure learning within GNNs. However, Kuipers/Sanchez-Martin/Yu in combination do not teach specific probability matrix with which is then used for estimating the treatment and applying it based on a specific range. The combination of these three prior arts do not disclose the expression defined in Claim 1 and it’s dependent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kuipers et. al, “Efficient Sampling and Structure Learning of Bayesian Networks”
Sanchez-Martin et al., “VACA: Design of Variational Graph Autoencoders for Interventional and Counterfactual Queries”
Yu et al., “DAG-GNN: DAG Structure Learning with Graph Neural Networks”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM RAHMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1646. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Kakali Chaki can be reached at (571) 272-3719. 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.
/I.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2122
/KAKALI CHAKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights