DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are regarding amended claims and are addressed in the updated 101 rejection does below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims will follow 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (“2019 PEG”).
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of process.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
A method for viability determination, the method comprising: This limitation could encompass a human mentally determining if a device is viable by measuring or calculating the viability of the device and writing it with a pen and paper.
[D]etermining viability of the manufactured device based on output of the machine-learned self-attention model in response to the applying; This limitation could encompass a human mentally determining if a device is viable by measuring or calculating the viability of the device and writing it with a pen and paper.
[T]he machine-learned self-attention model having been trained with masked value regression for predicting continuous values of some of the process and/or state parameters and masked variable classification for predicting categorical variables of some of the process and/or state parameters; defines the mathematical training calculation, thus directed to a mathematical process
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not granted into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are:
[R]eceiving process parameters and state parameters of a manufactured device; This limitation recites insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
[A]pplying a machine-learned self-attention model to the process parameters and state parameters: Stating that a machine learned self-attention model is applied to the process and state parameters is merely indicates field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Outputting the viability: This limitation recites insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and outputting. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: [R]eceiving process parameters and state parameters of a manufactured device; This limitation recites insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g). Upon reevaluation, the receiving process parameters and state parameters of a manufactured device limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WURC”) because it is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090, 1093 (Fed Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
[A]pplying a machine-learned self-attention model to the process parameters and state parameters: Stating that a machine learned self-attention model is applied to the process and state parameters is merely indicates field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. MPEP § 2106.05(h). FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Outputting the viability: This limitation recites insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and outputting. Upon reevaluation, the outputting the output as an embedding limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WURC”) because it is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090, 1093 (Fed Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2
Step 1: The claim recites a process as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites inter alia:
[D]etermining the viability comprises determining a lifetime of the manufactured device: This limitation could encompass a human can mentally determine if a device is viable by measuring or calculating the viability of the device and writing it with a pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2: There are no additional elements, therefore this judicial exception is not granted into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements, therefore the claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3
Step 1: The claim recites a process as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same mental process as in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not granted into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are:
The method of claim 1 wherein the manufactured device comprises a component of an x-ray tube assembly or the x-ray tube assembly: Stating that the manufactured device comprises a component of an x-ray tube assembly or the x-ray tube assembly merely indicates field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: The method of claim 1 wherein the manufactured device comprises a component of an x-ray tube assembly or the x-ray tube assembly: Stating that the manufactured device comprises a component of an x-ray tube assembly or the x-ray tube assembly merely indicates field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. MPEP § 2106.05(h). FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Claim 4
Step 1: The claim recites a process as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same mental process as in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not granted into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are:
The method of claim 1 wherein applying comprises outputting the output as an embedding as a sequential tabulation of process variables and process values for the process variables as the process parameters and of state variables and state values for the state variables as the state parameters, wherein the process variables comprise manufacturing and/or testing processes and the state variables comprises state of the manufactured device during and/or after processing to manufacture. This limitation recites insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: The method of claim 1 wherein applying comprises outputting the output as an embedding as a sequential tabulation of process variables and process values for the process variables as the process parameters and of state variables and state values for the state variables as the state parameters, wherein the process variables comprise manufacturing and/or testing processes and the state variables comprises state of the manufactured device during and/or after processing to manufacture. This limitation recites insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g). Upon reevaluation, the outputting the output as an embedding limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WURC”) because it is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090, 1093 (Fed Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5
Step 1: The claim recites a process as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same mental process as in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not granted into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are:
The method of claim 1 wherein applying comprises outputting the output as an embedding with one of more of the process parameters and/or state parameters represented multiple times. This limitation recites insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: The method of claim 1 wherein applying comprises outputting the output as an embedding with one of more of the process parameters and/or state parameters represented multiple times. This limitation recites insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g). Upon reevaluation, the outputting the output as an embedding limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WURC”) because it is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090, 1093 (Fed Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6
Step 1: The claim recites a process as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same mental process as in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not granted into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are:
The method of claim 1 wherein applying comprises outputting the output as an embedding with positional encoding of the process parameters and the state parameters. This limitation recites insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: The method of claim 1 wherein applying comprises outputting the output as an embedding with positional encoding of the process parameters and the state parameters. This limitation recites insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g). Upon reevaluation, the outputting the output as an embedding limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WURC”) because it is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090, 1093 (Fed Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7
Step 1: The claim recites a process as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same mental process as in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not granted into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are:
The method of claim 1 wherein applying comprises outputting the output as an embedding for each of multiple components and embedding the process parameters and state parameters for each of the multiple components into a common embedding for the manufactured device with labels in the common embedding for the components. This limitation recites insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: The method of claim 1 wherein applying comprises outputting the output as an embedding for each of multiple components and embedding the process parameters and state parameters for each of the multiple components into a common embedding for the manufactured device with labels in the common embedding for the components. This limitation recites insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g). Upon reevaluation, the outputting the output as an embedding limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WURC”) because it is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090, 1093 (Fed Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8
Step 1: The claim recites a process as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same mental process as in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not granted into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are:
The method of claim 7 wherein outputting further comprises including a token as part of the embedding at a beginning of the embedding for each of the components, the token identifying the component and the process and state parameters for that component following the token in the common embedding. This limitation recites insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: The method of claim 7 wherein outputting further comprises including a token as part of the embedding at a beginning of the embedding for each of the components, the token identifying the component and the process and state parameters for that component following the token in the common embedding. This limitation recites insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g). Upon reevaluation, the outputting limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WURC”) because it is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090, 1093 (Fed Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9
Step 1: The claim recites a process as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same mental process as in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not granted into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are:
The method of claim 1 wherein applying comprises outputting the output as an embedding of the process and state parameters as parameter variables and parameter values in a same space with the variables encoded numerically with numerical values distinguishing from the parameter values and wherein the process and state parameters include both continuous and non-continuous representations. This limitation recites insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: The method of claim 1 wherein applying comprises outputting the output as an embedding of the process and state parameters as parameter variables and parameter values in a same space with the variables encoded numerically with numerical values distinguishing from the parameter values and wherein the process and state parameters include both continuous and non-continuous representations. This limitation recites insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g). Upon reevaluation, the outputting the output as an embedding limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WURC”) because it is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090, 1093 (Fed Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10
Step 1: The claim recites a process as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same mental process as in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not granted into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are:
The method of claim 1 wherein applying comprises applying with the machine-learned self-attention model comprising a transformer neural network. Stating that the machine-learned self-attention model comprises a transformer neural network merely indicates field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. MPEP § 2106.05(h). Step 2B: The method of claim 1 wherein applying comprises applying with the machine-learned self-attention model comprising a transformer neural network. Stating that the machine-learned self-attention model comprises a transformer neural network merely indicates field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. MPEP § 2106.05(h). FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11
Step 1: The claim recites a process as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same mental process as in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not granted into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are:
The method of claim 1 wherein the machine-learned self-attention model was trained with regression by masked value regression and was trained with classification by masked variable classification. Stating that the machine-learned self-attention model having been trained with regression is insignificant extra solution activity MPEP § 2016.05(g).
Step 2B: The method of claim 1 wherein the machine-learned self-attention model was trained with regression by masked value regression and was trained with classification by masked variable classification. The training limitation, in addition to being extra-solution activity, is also WURC. MPEP § 2016.05(d); Prokhorov (US 20110196819), P[0005] (In order to obtain the appropriate weights for each of the nodes in the neural network, it has been previously necessary to train the neural network using conventional training techniques.).
The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12
Step 1: The claim recites a process as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same mental process as in claim 11.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not granted into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are:
The method of claim 11 wherein the masked value regression masked continuous values to train the self-attention model to predict the masked continuous values, and wherein the masked variable classification masked parameter variables while exposing the continuous values to train the self-attention model to predict the masked parameter variables. Stating that the masked value regression masked continuous values to train the self-attention model to predict the masked continuous values is insignificant extra solution activity MPEP § 2016.05(g).
Step 2B: The method of claim 11 wherein the masked value regression masked continuous values to train the self-attention model to predict the masked continuous values, and wherein the masked variable classification masked parameter variables while exposing the continuous values to train the self-attention model to predict the masked parameter variables. The training limitation, in addition to being extra-solution activity, is also WURC. MPEP § 2016.05(d); Prokhorov (US 20110196819), P[0005] (In order to obtain the appropriate weights for each of the nodes in the neural network, it has been previously necessary to train the neural network using conventional training techniques.).
The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13
Step 1: The claim recites a process as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same mental process as in claim 11.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not granted into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are:
The method of claim 11 wherein the machine-learned self-attention model was trained sequentially with the regression and with the classification. Stating that the self-attention model was trained sequentially with the regression and with the classification is insignificant extra solution activity MPEP § 2016.05(g).
Step 2B: The method of claim 11 wherein the machine-learned self-attention model was trained sequentially with the regression and with the classification. The training limitation, in addition to being extra-solution activity, is also WURC. MPEP § 2016.05(d); Prokhorov (US 20110196819), P[0005] (In order to obtain the appropriate weights for each of the nodes in the neural network, it has been previously necessary to train the neural network using conventional training techniques.).
The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14
Step 1: The claim recites a process as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same mental process as in claim 13.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not granted into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are:
The method of claim 13 wherein the machine-learned self-attention model was further trained as a generator of a generative adversarial network including a discriminator sequentially trained with the regression and with the classification. Stating that the self-attention model was further trained as a generator of a generative adversarial network is insignificant extra solution activity MPEP § 2016.05(g).
Step 2B: The method of claim 13 wherein the machine-learned self-attention model was further trained as a generator of a generative adversarial network including a discriminator sequentially trained with the regression and with the classification. The training limitation, in addition to being extra-solution activity, is also WURC. MPEP § 2016.05(d); Prokhorov (US 20110196819), P[0005] (In order to obtain the appropriate weights for each of the nodes in the neural network, it has been previously necessary to train the neural network using conventional training techniques.).
The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15
Step 1: The claim recites a process as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same mental process as in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not granted into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are:
The method of claim 1 wherein the output comprises an embedding based on self-attention based similarity, and wherein historic examples are identified with the embedding, and wherein determining comprises determining from the historic examples. This limitation recites insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: The method of claim 1 wherein the output comprises an embedding based on self-attention based similarity, and wherein historic examples are identified with the embedding, and wherein determining comprises determining from the historic examples. This limitation recites insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g). Upon reevaluation, the output limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WURC”) because it is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090, 1093 (Fed Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 16
Step 1: The claim recites a process as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites inter alia:
The method of claim 1 wherein determining comprises determining with a machine-learned viability model based on input of similar cases identified by the applying. This limitation could encompass a human mentally determining if a device is viable based on input by measuring or calculating the viability of the device and writing it with a pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2: There are no additional elements, therefore this judicial exception is not granted into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements, therefore the claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 17
Step 1: The claim recites a process as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites inter alia:
The method of claim 1 further comprising identifying a subset of the process and/or state parameters based on influence of the viability: This limitation could encompass a human mentally identifying a subset of the process and/or state parameters based on the influence of the viability and writing it with a pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not granted into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are:
[W]herein outputting the viability further comprises outputting the subset of the process and/or state parameters influencing the viability: This limitation recites insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and outputting. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: [W]herein outputting the viability further comprises outputting the subset of the process and/or state parameters influencing the viability: This limitation recites insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and outputting. MPEP § 2106.05(g). Upon reevaluation, the outputting the viability limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WURC”) because it is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090, 1093 (Fed Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 18
Step 1: The claim recites a system; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites inter alia:
[W]herein the processor is configured to find similar cases based on the embedding: This limitation could encompass a human mentally finding similar cases based on the embedding and writing them with a pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not granted into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are:
A system for similarity searching for a part, the system comprising: a memory configured to store a machine-learned model: This limitation recites mere instruction to apply exception using a generic computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f).[T]he machine-learned model comprising a transformer neural network configured to output an embedding based on self-attention similarity for both non-continuous variables and continuous values: This limitation recites insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
[T]he same transformer neural network having been trained with regression for the continuous values and classification for the non-continuous variables: Stating that the transformer neural network having been trained with regression is insignificant extra solution activity MPEP § 2016.05(g).
[A] processor configured to apply the continuous values and the non-continuous variables for the part to the machine-learned model, the application resulting in inference by the machine-learned model of the embedding: This limitation recites mere instruction to apply exception using a generic computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Step 2B:
A system for similarity searching for a part, the system comprising: a memory configured to store a machine-learned model: This limitation recites mere instruction to apply exception using a generic computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f). Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855-57 (Fed. Cir.2016).
[T]he machine-learned model comprising a transformer neural network configured to output an embedding based on self-attention similarity for both non-continuous variables and continuous values: This limitation recites insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g). Upon reevaluation, the output limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WURC”) because it is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090, 1093 (Fed Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
[T]he same transformer neural network having been trained with regression for the continuous values and classification for the non-continuous variables: The training limitation, in addition to being extra-solution activity, is also WURC. MPEP § 2016.05(d); Prokhorov (US 20110196819), P[0005] (In order to obtain the appropriate weights for each of the nodes in the neural network, it has been previously necessary to train the neural network using conventional training techniques.).
[A] processor configured to apply the continuous values and the non-continuous variables for the part to the machine-learned model, the application resulting in inference by the machine-learned model of the embedding: This limitation recites mere instruction to apply exception using a generic computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f). Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855-57 (Fed. Cir.2016).
The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 19
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of process.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites inter alia:
[T]raining, by the machine, the neural network with masked variable classification to predict the non-continuous variables in the embedding: This limitation could encompass a human mentally predicting the non-continuous variables in the embedding and writing them with a pen and paper.
wherein training with masked value regression comprises training with the non- continuous variables exposed, and wherein training with the masked variable classification comprises training with the continuous values exposed is a mathematical training operation and thus directed to a mathematical process
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not granted into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are:
A method for machine training for similarity, the method comprising: training, by a machine, a neural network with masked value regression to predict continuous values in an embedding including both the continuous values and non-continuous variables representing process and state parameters for a manufactured piece, the masked value regression using a self-attention similarity; Stating that the machine is performing training is insignificant extra solution activity MPEP § 2016.05(g).
[T]raining, by the machine, the neural network with masked variable classification to predict the non-continuous variables in the embedding, the masked variable classification using the self-attenuation similarity; Stating that the machine is performing training is insignificant extra solution activity MPEP § 2016.05(g).
[S]toring the machine-trained neural network: This limitation recites insignificant extra solution of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: A method for machine training for similarity, the method comprising: training, by a machine, a neural network with masked value regression to predict continuous values in an embedding including both the continuous values and non-continuous variables representing process and state parameters for a manufactured piece, the masked value regression using a self-attention similarity; The training limitation, in addition to being extra-solution activity, is also WURC. MPEP § 2016.05(d); Prokhorov (US 20110196819), P[0005] (In order to obtain the appropriate weights for each of the nodes in the neural network, it has been previously necessary to train the neural network using conventional training techniques.).
[T]raining, by the machine, the neural network with masked variable classification to predict the non-continuous variables in the embedding, the masked variable classification using the self-attenuation similarity; The training limitation, in addition to being extra-solution activity, is also WURC. MPEP § 2016.05(d); Prokhorov (US 20110196819), P[0005] (In order to obtain the appropriate weights for each of the nodes in the neural network, it has been previously necessary to train the neural network using conventional training techniques.).
[S]toring the machine-trained neural network: This limitation recites insignificant extra solution of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP § 2106.05(g). Upon reevaluation, storing the curated features limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WURC”) because it is directed to storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 20
Step 1: The claim recites a process as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same mental process as claim 19:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not granted into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are:
The method of claim 19 [T]he neural network comprises a transformer network as a self-attention-based encoder: Stating that the neural network comprises a transformer network as a self-attention-based encoder merely indicates field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
[T]he neural network comprises a transformer network as a self-attention-based encoder: Stating that the neural network comprises a transformer network as a self-attention-based encoder merely indicates field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. MPEP § 2106.05(h). FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANN J LO whose telephone number is (571)272-9767. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cordelia Zecher can be reached at 571-272-7771. 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.
/ANN J LO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights