DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the RCE filed on 03/23/2026.
Claims 1-18 currently amended.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/28/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner, except where lined through.
Response to Arguments
In reference to Applicant’s arguments on page(s) 13 regarding rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 112:
Claims 14 - 18 were rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. This rejection is respectfully traversed
Applicant respectfully notes that claims 14 - 18 are currently amended, wherein the preamble to each clarifies that the claimed medium is "non-transitory" in nature.
Therefore, the reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of 14 - 18 under 35 USC 112(b) is respectfully requested.’
Examiner’s response:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive.
In light of the amendments made to claims 14-18, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 112 are withdrawn.
In reference to Applicant’s arguments on page(s) 13-23 regarding rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Claims 1 -20 were rejected under 35 USC 101 for allegedly being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This rejection is respectfully traversed.
Applicant respectfully notes that the present patent application relates to methods and, referring to amended claim 1 for example, a system to train a decision tree model based on a reduced dimensionality of hierarchical training data. As disclosed in the Specification in some embodiments, boundary equivalences between members of a parent hierarchy level and certain members of a child hierarchy level are identified. Data associated with the child hierarchy level is used to train a decision tree model, and values are determined based on the boundary equivalences between the child hierarchy level and the parent hierarchy level, and on splits extracted from the trained decision tree model. In some aspects, the values may indicate whether a parent level should be substituted for or used in addition to a child hierarchy level within the hierarchical training data.(Specification, paragraph [0024], as reproduced in US 2023/0342628 Al)) As further disclosed, "embodiments reduce dimensionality of training data in an iterative, hierarchically-aware, and supervised manner (i.e., based on a training target). Embodiments may therefore provide faster training, improved model interpretability and higher predictive accuracy". (emphasis added)(Specification, paragraph [0025])
In reply to the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims submitted herein further clarify that which is claimed by Applicant. Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims listed herein are not directed to "mental processes” as alleged beginning at page 10 of the Final Office Action dated January 21, 2026 (the "FOA").
Applicant respectfully submits that amened claim 1, when evaluated as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract ideas of the system recited in the previous version of claim 1, as outlined in the FOA.
Applicant reiterates that which is articulated in the USPTO memorandum dated August 4, 2025 regarding "Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101" (the "August 4th Memo") that "a claim recites mental process when it contains limitation(s) that can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. On the other hand, a claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation(s)".
Consistent with the August 4th Memo, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 clearly recites a system, including functional aspects thereof, that cannot be performed practically in the mind of a human.
Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 submitted herein recites additional details that place sufficient, meaningful limitations on the scope of the claimed features and aspects. For example, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 submitted herein clearly recites a particular, specific manner in which to "train a second decision tree model, based on an input of the selected one or more hierarchy levels, to infer the target measure' and to further "execute the trained second decision tree model, in response to an input of a second set of data thereto, to generate an output of inferred values based on the second set of data".
Applicant respectfully submits that the features of amended claim 1 are not merely recited at a high-level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution of outcome since amended claim 1 clearly recites details of how the set of data having a reduced dimensionality is determined and used to train the second decision tree model that provides improved performance (as disclosed in the Specification).
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims submitted herewith provide, in a controlled manner, a technical solution to the technical problem being addressed, including meaningful limitations of the recited features.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully maintains that amended claim 1, and similarly amended claims 13 and 18, are directed to patentable subject matter under 35 USC 101. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests the reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 - 21 under 35 USC 101, as well as the allowance of these same claims.
Examiner’s response:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are found to be not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 of the instant application, when evaluated as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract ideas of the system recited in the previous version of claim 1. Examiner disagrees. Amended claim 1, as well as the parallel independent claims, recites processes for reducing the dimensionality of a set of provided data and using that reduced data set to train a machine learning model. Limitations of selecting a first hierarchy level of the dimensions in the data set , generating records regarding those selected levels (the generating of which involves sorting members of that hierarchy), determining a number of members in that hierarchy level, determining predicates based on the results of a machine learning model, and selecting groups of hierarchy levels based on the determined predicates are all actions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind and are therefore considered abstract ideas of mental processes. The presented claims do not provide significantly more than the abstract ideas because the additional elements present in the claims are related to factors independent from the inventive concept, i.e. utilizing generic computer components (a processor and storage), gathering data (receiving data sets over the network), and reciting the idea of a solution (training the models). None of which provide any significant technological improvements over the training of a machine learning model.
Applicant argues that the amended claims recite additional details that place sufficient, meaningful limitations on the scope of the claimed features and aspects in regards to the training of the second decision tree model. Examiner disagrees. The limitations regarding the training of a second model do not limit the scope of the invention in any meaningful way because they are additional elements that do not place sufficient, meaningful limitations on the scope of the invention. Said limitations amount to additional elements of using generic computer components, in this case a generic second decision tree model, to perform the actions of the claims.
Applicant argues that the claims presented provide a technical solution/improvement to a technical problem. Examiner disagrees. The claims as presented provide the processes for reducing the dimensionality of a data set, as mentioned above, and training a model more efficiently due to the reduced data set. However, the reduction of the dimensionality of the data set relies heavily on abstract ideas, namely selecting a subset of the data, determining edges to be removed within the selected subset, after training a model with the reduced data determining predicates associated with the certain datapoints, and selecting which datapoints to be removed. All of these actions can be reasonably performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. Consequently, the technological improvement relied upon in the instant application is that of “faster training, improved model interpretability and higher predictive accuracy” as is mentioned in [0025]. The technological improvement herein stems from the fact that there is less overall data to process, leading to faster training, improved model interpretability and higher predictive accuracy. Technological improvements cannot arise from an abstract idea, in this case selecting which data to remove from the data set, and therefore the instant application does not provide a technological improvement to the training of a machine learning model/decision tree model.
In light of the amendments made on the claims, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained and updated 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 1-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 analysis:
Independent Claim 1 recites, in part, a system comprising a memory storing processor-executable program code and at least one processing unit to execute the processor-executable program code, therefore falling into the statutory category of manufacture. Independent Claim 7 recites, in part, a method therefore falling into the statutory category of process. Independent Claim 13 recites, in part, a non-transitory medium storing executable program code executable by at least one processing unit of a computing system, therefore falling into the statutory category of manufacture.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 1 recites in part:
“select a first hierarchy level of one of the dimensions of the target data”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses identifying members of a hierarchical data level.
“generate records associating members of the first hierarchy level with the target data, the generating of the records including topologically sorting the first plurality of members of the first hierarchy level with respect to members of a parent hierarchy level of the first hierarchy level”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses generating data that associates hierarchical members.
“determine a first plurality of edge members of the first hierarchy level, wherein each of the first plurality of edge members represents a same boundary within the target data as represented by a member of the parent hierarchy level of the first hierarchy level”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining a number of datapoints within a certain hierarchy level.
“determine, from the trained decision tree model, a plurality of predicates associated with members of the first hierarchy level”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses identifying properties or relationships between datapoints.
“based on the first plurality of edge members and the plurality of predicates, select either the parent hierarchy level and the first hierarchy level, or the parent hierarchy level and not the first hierarchy level”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses selecting or not selecting data.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“a memory storing processor-executable program code”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (memory) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“at least one processing unit to execute the processor-executable program code”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (processing unit) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“receive a request to generate a model to determine a classification or value based on a set of specified data”. This additional element amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data (MPEP 2106.05(g): i.e., pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
“receive target data associated with a dimension, the target data including a plurality of dimensions organized in hierarchy levels and associated with a target measure”. This additional element amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data (MPEP 2106.05(g): i.e., pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
“execute one or more training iterations of a first decision tree model based on the generated records, a training iteration including inputting the generated records to the first decision tree model, executing the first decision tree model to generate an output of inferred values for each of the generated records, and modifying the first decision tree model based on the inferred values to generate a trained decision tree model”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (training a decision tree) i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
“train a second decision tree model: based on an input of the selected one or more hierarchy levels, to infer the target measure”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (training a decision tree) i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
“store the trained second decision tree model in a data storage”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (storage) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“execute the trained second decision tree model, in response to an input of a second set of data thereto, to generate an output of inferred values based on the second set of data”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (training a decision tree) i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “a memory storing processor-executable program code”, “at least one processing unit to execute the processor-executable program code” and “store the trained second decision tree model in a data storage” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “receive target data associated with a dimension, the target data including a plurality of dimensions organized in hierarchy levels and associated with a target measure” and “receive a request to generate a model to determine a classification or value based on a set of specified data” is/are recited at a high level of generality and amount(s) to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e., pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “execute one or more training iterations of a first decision tree model based on the generated records, a training iteration including inputting the generated records to the first decision tree model, executing the first decision tree model to generate an output of inferred values for each of the generated records, and modifying the first decision tree model based on the inferred values to generate a trained decision tree model”, “train a second decision tree model: based on an input of the selected one or more hierarchy levels, to infer the target measure” and “execute the trained second decision tree model, in response to an input of a second set of data thereto, to generate an output of inferred values based on the second set of data” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (training a decision tree) i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 2:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 2 recites in part:
“determination of a first number of the plurality of predicates that are associated with one of the first plurality of edge members”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining how many pieces of data are associated with each other.
“selection, based on the first number, of either the parent level and the first hierarchy level, or the parent level and not the first hierarchy level”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses selecting or not selecting data based on a determined number.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 3:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 3 recites in part:
“determination of a second number of the first plurality of edge members”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining a second number of data members.
“wherein selection of either the parent level and the first hierarchy level, or the parent level and not the first hierarchy level, is based on the first number and the second number”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses selecting or not selecting data based on a determined number.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 4:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 4 recites in part:
“determination of a third number of the plurality of predicates that are not associated with one of the first plurality of edge members”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining a third number of data members.
“determination of a fourth number of members of the first hierarchy level that are not one of the first plurality of members”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining a fourth number of data members.
“wherein selection of either the parent level and the first hierarchy level, or the parent level and not the first one of the levels, is based on the first number, the second number, the third number and the fourth number”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses selecting or not selecting data based on a determined number.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 5:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 5 recites in part:
“select a second hierarchy level of one of the dimensions of the target data”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses identifying members of a hierarchical data level.
“generate second records associating members of the second hierarchy level with the target data, the generating of the second records including topologically sorting the first plurality of members of the second hierarchy level with respect to members of a parent hierarchy level of the second hierarchy level”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses generating data associations.
“determine a second plurality of edge members of the second hierarchy level, wherein each of the second plurality of edge members represents a same boundary within the target data as represented by a member of the parent hierarchy level of the second hierarchy level”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining a number of datapoints within a certain hierarchy level.
“determine, from the trained third decision tree model, a second plurality of predicates associated with members of the second hierarchy level”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses identifying properties or relationships between data points.
“based on the second plurality of edge members and the second plurality of predicates, select either the parent hierarchy level of the second hierarchy level and the second hierarchy level, or the parent level of the second hierarchy level and not the second hierarchy level”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses selecting or not selecting data based on a determined number.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“execute one or more training iterations of a third decision tree model based on the generated second records, a training iteration including inputting the generated second records to the third decision tree model, executing the third decision tree model to generate an output of inferred values for each of the generated second records, and modifying the third decision tree model based on the inferred values to generate a trained third decision tree model”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (training a decision tree) i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
“wherein the second decision tree model is trained based on the selected parent level of the second hierarchy level and the second hierarchy level, or the parent level of the second hierarchy level and not the second hierarchy level”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (training a decision tree) i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “execute one or more training iterations of a third decision tree model based on the generated second records, a training iteration including inputting the generated second records to the third decision tree model, executing the third decision tree model to generate an output of inferred values for each of the generated second records, and modifying the third decision tree model based on the inferred values to generate a trained third decision tree model” and “wherein the second decision tree model is trained based on the selected parent level of the second hierarchy level and the second hierarchy level, or the parent level of the second hierarchy level and not the second hierarchy level” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (training a decision tree) i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 6:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 6 recites in part:
“determination of a first number of the plurality of predicates that are associated with one of the first plurality of edge members”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining a number of predicates associated with data points.
“selection, based on the first number, of either the parent level of the first hierarchy level and the first hierarchy level, or the parent level of the first hierarchy level and not the first hierarchy level”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses selecting or not selecting data based on a determined number.
“determination of a second number of the second plurality of predicates that are associated with one of the second plurality of edge members”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining a number of predicates associated with data points.
“selection, based on the second number, of either the parent level of the second hierarchy level and the second hierarchy level, or the parent level of the second hierarchy level and not the second hierarchy level”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses selecting or not selecting data based on a determined number.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 7:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 7 recites in part:
“identifying first edge members of a child hierarchy level of a dimension hierarchy that are associated with boundaries between second members of a parent hierarchy level of the dimension hierarchy”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses identifying data points.
“determining a value based on the identified first edge members of the child hierarchy level and on the extracted predicates on the child hierarchy level”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining a value based on data and extracted information.
“determining, based on the value, whether to include the parent hierarchy level and the child hierarchy level within training data or to include the parent hierarchy level and not include the child level within the training data”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses selecting or not selecting data based on a determined number.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“training a decision tree model based on target data associated with the child hierarchy level, the target data being associated with a target measure”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (training a decision tree) i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
“extracting predicates on the child hierarchy level from the trained decision tree model”. This additional element amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data (MPEP 2106.05(g): i.e., pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
“training a second decision tree model, based on an input including the one or more hierarchy levels determined to include within the training data, to infer the target measure”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (training a decision tree) i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
“storing the trained second decision tree model in a data storage”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (storage) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“executing the trained second decision tree model, in response to an input of a second set of data thereto, to generate an output of inferred values based on the second set of data”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (training a decision tree) i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “training a decision tree model based on target data associated with the child hierarchy level, the target data being associated with a target measure”, “training a second decision tree model, based on an input including the one or more hierarchy levels determined to include within the training data, to infer the target measure” and “executing the trained second decision tree model, in response to an input of a second set of data thereto, to generate an output of inferred values based on the second set of data” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (training a decision tree) i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above, the additional element of “extracting predicates on the child level from the trained decision tree model” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e., pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “storing the trained second decision tree model in a data storage” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 8:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 8 recites in part:
“determining a first number of the predicates that are associated with one of the first edge members”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining a number of relationships associated with a number of data points.
“determining the value based on the first number”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining a value based on a number.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 9:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 9 recites in part:
“determining a second number of the first edge members”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining a number of data points.
“determining the value based on the first number and the second number”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining a value based on a number.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 10:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 10 recites in part:
“determining a third number of the predicates which are not associated with one of the first edge members”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining a number of relationships not associated with certain data points.
“determining a fourth number of members of the child level which are not one of the first edge members”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining a number of data points that are not a part of the original number of data points.
“determining the value based on the first number, the second number, the third number and the fourth number”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining a value based on predetermined numbers.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 11:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 11 recites in part:
“identifying third edge members of a second child hierarchy level that are associated with boundaries between fourth members of a second parent hierarchy level of the second child hierarchy level”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining a number of data points.
“determining a second value based on the identified third edge members of the second child hierarchy level and on the extracted second predicates on the second child hierarchy level”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining a value based on determined data points.
“determining, based on the second value, whether to include the second parent hierarchy level and the second child hierarchy level within the training data or to include the second parent hierarchy level and not include the second child hierarchy level within the training data”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses selecting or not selecting certain data points based on a previously determined value.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“training a second decision tree model based on data associated with the second child hierarchy level”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (training a decision tree) i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
“extracting second predicates on the second child hierarchy level from the trained second decision tree model”. This additional element amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data (MPEP 2106.05(g): i.e., pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “training a second decision tree model based on data associated with the second child hierarchy level” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (training a decision tree) i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above, the additional element of “extracting second predicates on the second child hierarchy level from the trained second decision tree model” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e., pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 12:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 12 recites in part:
“determining a first number of the predicates that are associated with one of the first members”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining a number relationships between data points.
“determining a second number of the first edge members”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining a number of data points.
“determining a third number of the second predicates that are associated with one of the third edge members”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining a number relationships between data points.
“determining a fourth number of the third edge members”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining a number of data points.
“determining the value based on the first number, the second number, the third number and the fourth number”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining a values based on previously determined numbers of data points.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 13:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 1, Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 2, Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 15:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 3, Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 16:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 4, Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 17:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 5, Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 18:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 6, Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20040064464 A1 – classification of items into categories, and more generally, to the automatic selection of different classifiers at different places within a hierarchy of categories
US 20090319507 A1 – Methods and apparatuses are provided for adapting hierarchical structure information associated with a first ranking function tuned for use in a first domain for use in a second domain
US 20200302318 A1 – techniques to generate candidate rulesets for machine learning (ML) explainability (MLX) for black-box ML models
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COREY M SACKALOSKY whose telephone number is (703)756-1590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-3:30pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at (571) 272-2589. 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.
/COREY M SACKALOSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 2128
/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights