Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/29/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 8-10, and 15-17 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Step 2A, Prong One:
Applicant argues that claim 1 is not directed to a mental process, mathematical concept, or abstract idea but rather to a specific improvement in analytical modeling technology and cannot feasibly be performed mentally or by pen and paper for practical (real-world, multidimensional, and large-scale) analytical models. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that claim 1 recites generating a perturbation response curve based on model outputs for inputs varying in perturbation magnitude, comparing that curve to a corresponding perturbation cumulative density curve of an idealized model, determining deviations relative to ideal results, and generating a score representing invariance. It is noted that these operations are mathematical concepts because they recite mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations, including curve generation, cumulative density, deviation determination, and score generation. Thus, the claim still recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Applicant argues that integrated any alleged exception into a practical application because the ordered combination improves model robustness, enables model selection/benchmarking/deployment, and provides a meaningful technological improvement. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that claim 1 is directed to evaluating model behavior and producing an invariance score, not to a specific technological use of that score that improves computer functionality or another technology. Furthermore, the specification does disclose certain asserted benefits. However, current USPTO guidance, including the Desjardins update, requires not only that the specification describes a technological improvement, but also that the claim itself reflect that improvement. In this case, claim 1 merely accesses a model, perturbs input data, compares derived curved to idealized results, determines deviations, and generate a score. That is use of a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical analysis, not integration into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Applicant argues that the claimed generation and alignment of perturbation response curves, execution of model runs with perturbed data, and automatic derivation of an invariance score are not well-understood, routine, or conventional, and therefore provide an inventive concept. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claim’s additional elements beyond the abstract mathematical analysis are only a generic memory, generic processor, and generic executable components that access and execute an analytical model. Those additional elements perform ordinary storage, execution, access, and processing functions. Under USPTO’s current eligibility framework, simply automating a mathematical analysis on generic components does not amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 the abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1, the claims are directed to a process, machine, and manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1, Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite, in part
generates a perturbation response curve based on a plurality of combined results of executions of the analytical model in response to respective sets of inputs that vary in degree of perturbation from a set of test data employed to train the analytical model (Mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships/calculations).
compares the perturbation response curve to a corresponding curve comprising a perturbation cumulative density curve generated from ideal results of an idealized model that is invariant to all perturbation magnitudes (Mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships/calculations).
determines, based on the comparison, one or more deviations of the plurality of combined results relative to the ideal results (Mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships/calculations).
generates, based on the one or more deviations, a score representing a measure of invariance of the analytical model to perturbations in the respective sets of inputs (Mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships/calculations).
Step 2A Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional elements:
a system, comprising: a memory that stores computer executable components; and a processor that executes at least one of the computer executable components (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component).
accesses an analytical model (mere data gathering and recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity).
Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either alone or in combination.
The additional elements:
a system, comprising: a memory that stores computer executable components; and a processor that executes at least one of the computer executable components (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component).
accesses an analytical model (mere data gathering and recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity).
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 provide further limitations to the abstract idea (Mathematical concepts and/or Mental processes) as rejected in claims 1, 8, 15, however, they do not disclose any additional elements that would amount to a practical application or significantly more than an abstract idea (data gathering/insignificant extra-solution activity and/or generic computer component).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Carmi (Pub. No. US 20210133976 A1), the third training data set may have a higher degree of perturbation with respect to the second training data set. Thus, the third degree of perturbations may have a greater strength or have a higher level of randomness compared to the second degree of perturbations. As a result, a standard deviation of a corresponding distribution for each perturbation type (e.g., linear translation, rotation, resizing, and image noise) is greater for the third degree perturbations compared to the second degree perturbations.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAN TRAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4266. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday - 8:00 am - 5:00 pm MT.
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, Matt Ell can be reached on 571-270-3264. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAN H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2141
Prosecution Insights