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 05/11/2022 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim
Limitations
Location
1
a messaging module of the explanation engine configured to collect the top-level result
[56-57, 71]
2
a terminology module configured to assign terminology
[44-45]
3
terminology module of the explanation engine configured to accept
[44-45]
3
terminology module is configured to crawl
[44-45]
4
second reasoning engine that is configured to create
[30]
4
explanation engine is configured to cooperate
[19]
5
crawl back module configured to cooperate
[24-26, 37]
6
crawl back module configured to cooperate
[24-26, 37]
6
crawl back module of the explanation engine is configured to crawl through
[24-26, 37]
7
ablation module configured to change
[23, 36, 52]
8
ablation module configured to conduct
[23, 36, 52]
8
messaging module is configured to take results
[56-57, 71]
9
messaging module of the explanation engine is configured to 1) extract… 2) cooperate
[56-57, 71]
14
Same as Claim 4
16
crawl back module of the explanation engine is configured to crawl through
[24-26, 37]
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The meaning of the modules is imported from [0094] of the Specification which contains a sufficient combination of computer hardware and algorithms (software) in the structure. The explanation engine contains modules according to [0019] which is sufficient structure. The second reasoning engine contains modules according [0030]. The locations of sufficient algorithmic structure for each of the modules are found in the Location column.
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 claims recite mental processes and mathematical concepts. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as explained below.
Step 1 for all Claims:
Claims 1-10 are directed to a machine. Claims 11-20 are directed to a method (process). Therefore, Claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
[An apparatus, comprising: an explanation engine having a set of modules cooperating with each other configured to] evaluate layers in a hierarchical architecture of a machine-based reasoning process that uses machine learning to support an explanation of how the machine-based reasoning process arrived at its reported results of both a top-level result as well as corresponding intermediate output results, As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses evaluating layers to provide an explanation which is making an evaluation based upon the inputs and results of the machine-based reasoning process which can be feasibly performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
An apparatus, comprising: an explanation engine having a set of modules cooperating with each other configured to… This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The configuration is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the configuration process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
and a messaging module of the explanation engine configured to collect the top- level result as well as one or more intermediate output results from intermediate layers of the machine-based reasoning process, where multiple layers of reasoning are associated with terminology used in at least one of i) a problem to be solved and ii) a domain pertinent to the problem in order to communicate how the machine-based reasoning process came to its reported results in a communication. This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
An apparatus, comprising: an explanation engine having a set of modules cooperating with each other configured to… This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The configuration is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the configuration process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
and a messaging module of the explanation engine configured to collect the top- level result as well as one or more intermediate output results from intermediate layers of the machine-based reasoning process, where multiple layers of reasoning are associated with terminology used in at least one of i) a problem to be solved and ii) a domain pertinent to the problem in order to communicate how the machine-based reasoning process came to its reported results in a communication. As discussed above, the additional elements of collecting the top-level result and intermediate output results which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data. 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").
Regarding Claim 2:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
[The apparatus of claim 1, where the explanation engine has a terminology module configured to] assign terminology from any of i) the domain pertinent to the problem and ii) the specific problem to be solved, for the multiple layers in the hierarchical architecture of the machine-based reasoning process supplied from a reasoning engine, where the user is able to understand the results in terms of the specific problem or domain based on the way the communication is generated. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses assigning terminology from a pertinent domain to the reasoning process to help the user to understand the results which is making observations or opinions based on descriptive terminology pertinent to the field of study in order to provide an explanation, which can be feasibly performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The apparatus of claim 1, where the explanation engine has a terminology module configured to… This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The configuration is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the configuration process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B:
The apparatus of claim 1, where the explanation engine has a terminology module configured to… This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The configuration is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the configuration process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding Claim 3:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
and where the terminology module is configured to crawl through the hierarchical architecture of the machine-based reasoning process, to be created by a reasoning engine, and then associate i) the terminology specific to the problem to be solved supplied by the user and/or terminology specific to a relevant subject matter domain with ii) the multiple layers making up the hierarchical architecture of the machine-based reasoning process. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses crawling through the reasoning process and associating terminology to layers in the reasoning process which is making a judgement based upon how well certain terminology match with certain layers in the reasoning process which can be feasibly performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The apparatus of claim 1, where the explanation engine has a terminology module of the explanation engine configured to accept input of terminology for the problem to be solved that is supplied by at least one of i) a description of the problem to be solved ii) a description of preferred approach to solve the problem from a user, and iii) a database of known terminology specific to the domain pertinent to the problem, This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The apparatus of claim 1, where the explanation engine has a terminology module of the explanation engine configured to accept input of terminology for the problem to be solved that is supplied by at least one of i) a description of the problem to be solved ii) a description of preferred approach to solve the problem from a user, and iii) a database of known terminology specific to the domain pertinent to the problem, As discussed above, the additional elements of accepting terminology which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data. 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").
Regarding Claim 4:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
break down its machine-based reasoning process into divisible layers that provide intermediary output results to other layers in order to determine the top level result from the machine-based reasoning process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses breaking down the reasoning process into layers to determine a top-level result which is making an observation and then a judgement based upon mentally categorizing parts of the reasoning process and then arriving at a result by observing the intermediate results which can be feasibly performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The apparatus of claim 1, where the explanation engine is configured to cooperate with a first reasoning engine that is configured to… This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The configuration is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the configuration process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
as opposed to a second reasoning engine that is configured to create one omnibus neural network that is compiled as a black box that merely outputs its final decision; This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The final decision outputting is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the decision-making process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
and where the explanation engine is configured to cooperate with the first reasoning engine to allow a user to query what the intermediary output results are for each layer of the machine-based reasoning process as well as what would happen when the intermediary output results were altered. This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data and outputting for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The apparatus of claim 1, where the explanation engine is configured to cooperate with a first reasoning engine that is configured to… This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The configuration is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the configuration process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
as opposed to a second reasoning engine that is configured to create one omnibus neural network that is compiled as a black box that merely outputs its final decision; This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The final decision outputting is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the decision-making process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
and where the explanation engine is configured to cooperate with the first reasoning engine to allow a user to query what the intermediary output results are for each layer of the machine-based reasoning process as well as what would happen when the intermediary output results were altered. As discussed above, the additional elements of accepting user queries which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data. 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").
Regarding Claim 5:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
[The apparatus of claim 1, where the explanation engine has a crawl back module configured to] cooperate with an ablation module to trace through the intermediate layers of the machine-based reasoning process constructed by a reasoning engine to record factors being considered and how important that factor was into arriving at the top-level result from the machine-based reasoning process. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses tracing through the intermediate layers of a reasoning process and making record of important factors which is making observations of the plurality of layers and making note of the importance of the factors which can be feasibly performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The apparatus of claim 1, where the explanation engine has a crawl back module configured to… This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The configuration is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the configuration process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B:
The apparatus of claim 1, where the explanation engine has a crawl back module configured to… This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The configuration is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the configuration process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding Claim 6:
Step 2A, Prong 2:
[The apparatus of claim 1, where the explanation engine has a crawl back module configured to] cooperate with the messaging module, where the crawl back module of the explanation engine is configured to crawl through a decomposition of the machine- based reasoning process to collect and then report the intermediate output results from the multiple layers of the reasoning process to explain the top-level result in terms of the intermediate output results. This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The apparatus of claim 1, where the explanation engine has a crawl back module configured to … This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The configuration is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the configuration process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B:
The apparatus of claim 1, where the explanation engine has a crawl back module configured to … This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The configuration is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the configuration process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
[The apparatus of claim 1, where the explanation engine has a crawl back module configured to] cooperate with the messaging module, where the crawl back module of the explanation engine is configured to crawl through a decomposition of the machine- based reasoning process to collect and then report the intermediate output results from the multiple layers of the reasoning process to explain the top-level result in terms of the intermediate output results. As discussed above, the additional elements of collecting the top-level result and intermediate output results and reporting them are recited at a high level of generality and amount to extra-solution activity of gathering data. 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").
Regarding Claim 7:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
[The apparatus of claim 1, where the explanation engine has an ablation module configured to] change the intermediate output results from layers of the machine-based reasoning process by altering an input for that layer and then output a new intermediate output result from that layer of the machine-based reasoning process as well as a new top-level result. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses changing inputs for layers to get different intermediate output results which is making a prediction or calculation based upon altering the initial circumstances in a hypothetical scenario which can be feasibly performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The apparatus of claim 1, where the explanation engine has an ablation module configured to… This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The configuration is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the configuration process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B:
The apparatus of claim 1, where the explanation engine has an ablation module configured to… This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The configuration is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the configuration process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding Claim 8:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
conduct one or more ablation cycles to alter an input to a layer of the machine-based reasoning process created by a reasoning engine to determine an effect of that layer on the top-level result and record the effect; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses determining and recording an effect of a layer on the result which is making a judgement and memory based upon observing the differences between the beginning and end of the ablation cycles and considering the input alterations which can be feasibly performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: an ablation module configured to… This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The configuration is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the configuration process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
and where the messaging module is configured to take results of the ablation cycles and data generated with them in order to generate the reported results of an impact of each layer of machine-based reasoning process in the communication generated by the messaging module. This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering outputting for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: an ablation module configured to… This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The configuration is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the configuration process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
and where the messaging module is configured to take results of the ablation cycles and data generated with them in order to generate the reported results of an impact of each layer of machine-based reasoning process in the communication generated by the messaging module. As discussed above, the additional elements of taking results and data to generate a report which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of transmitting data. 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").
Regarding Claim 9:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
[The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: where the messaging module of the explanation engine is configured to] 1) extract the intermediate output results from the multiple layers of the machine-based reasoning process created by a reasoning engine and 2) cooperate with a terminology module to associate the intermediate output results from the multiple layers with the terminology taken from the at least one of i) subject domain pertinent to the problem and ii) the problem specific terminology used in the problem to be solved. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses extracting intermediate results and associating those results with terminology which is making a judgement based upon analyzing the multiple layers of the reasoning process and then matching results to their appropriate terminology which can be feasibly performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: where the messaging module of the explanation engine is configured to… This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The configuration is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the configuration process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B:
The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: where the messaging module of the explanation engine is configured to… This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The configuration is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the configuration process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding Claim 10:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
causing an explanation engine having a set of modules to evaluate layers in a hierarchical architecture of a machine-based reasoning process that uses machine learning to support an explanation of how the machine-based reasoning process arrived at its reported results of both a top-level result as well as corresponding intermediate output results, As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses evaluating layers to provide an explanation which is making an evaluation based upon the inputs and results of the machine-based reasoning process which can be feasibly performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium including executable instructions that, when executed with one or more processors, cause an explanation engine to perform operations as follows, comprising: This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The performing of operations is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the operations performance process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
and causing a messaging module of the explanation engine to collect the top-level result as well as one or more intermediate output results from intermediate layers of the machine-based reasoning process, where each layer of reasoning is associated with terminology used in at least one of i) a problem being solved and ii) a domain pertinent to the problem in order to communicate how the machine-based reasoning process came to its reported results in a communication. This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium including executable instructions that, when executed with one or more processors, cause an explanation engine to perform operations as follows, comprising: This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The performing of operations is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the operations performance process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
and causing a messaging module of the explanation engine to collect the top-level result as well as one or more intermediate output results from intermediate layers of the machine-based reasoning process, where each layer of reasoning is associated with terminology used in at least one of i) a problem being solved and ii) a domain pertinent to the problem in order to communicate how the machine-based reasoning process came to its reported results in a communication. As discussed above, the additional elements of collecting results which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data. 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").
Regarding Claim 11:
The claim is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 1 for reciting substantially similar limitations.
Regarding Claim 12:
The claim is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 2 for reciting substantially similar limitations.
Regarding Claim 13:
The claim is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 3 for reciting substantially similar limitations.
Regarding Claim 14:
The claim is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 4 for reciting substantially similar limitations.
Regarding Claim 15:
The claim is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 5 for reciting substantially similar limitations.
Regarding Claim 16:
The claim is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 6 for reciting substantially similar limitations.
Regarding Claim 17:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The method of claim 11, further comprising: configuring an ablation module of the explanation engine to remove each intermediate layer of the machine-based reasoning process, one at a time, and evaluate an impact on the top-level result from the machine-based reasoning process. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses evaluating the impact of layers on the top-level result to provide an explanation which is making an evaluation based upon manipulating the inputs of the machine-based reasoning process which can be feasibly performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Regarding Claim 18:
The claim is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 7 for reciting substantially similar limitations.
Regarding Claim 19:
The claim is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 8 for reciting substantially similar limitations.
Regarding Claim 20:
The claim is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 9 for reciting substantially similar limitations.
Just say okClaim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forsyth et al. (US 20200311798 A1) in view of Chatterjee et al. (US 10824959 B1), hereinafter referred to as Forsyth and Chatterjee, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1:
Forsyth teaches: An apparatus, comprising: an explanation engine having a set of modules cooperating with each other configured to evaluate layers in a hierarchical architecture of a machine-based reasoning process… ([0046] “FIG. 4A is a flow chart 400 to illustrate a neural network regression flow use of visual semantic embeddings that employs a two-step training procedure, according to an embodiment. As illustrated, the NN regressor model may be trained with use of a multi-layer neural network. As pre-processing steps, the search engine server 120 receives an input image 410 on which to train, which is submitted to the visual semantic embedder 124 (FIG. 1) in order to generate a visual semantic embedding for the input image 410. The search engine server 120 also receives, as an input, a group of words that represent labels describing the product represented by the input image 410 using the terms in the developed lexicon, which was discussed above. In one embodiment, the NN regressor model computes the visual semantic embedding based on a visual-semantic loss between a text-based image embedding of the input image and features represented within the group of words, as will be discussed in more detail with reference to FIG. 4B.”
Examiner’s Note: The search engine server is read as the explanation engine. The multi-layer neural network is read as hierarchical architecture, especially given FIG. 4A which displays the variety of modules/components organized in order and function. Computing the visual semantic embedding based on visual-semantic loss is read as evaluating layers… in a machine-based reasoning process.
where multiple layers of reasoning are associated with terminology used in at least one of i) a problem to be solved and ii) a domain pertinent to the problem in order to communicate how the machine-based reasoning process came to its reported results in a communication. ([0038] “To train the regressor, a dataset of more than 75,000 fashion products was captured from Net-A-Porter, a popular online fashion retailer, mining the product images and accompanying text descriptions for each item. Through an iterative open encoding of frequently occurring unigrams, bigrams, and trigrams in the text descriptions, the search engine server 120 created a lexicon of 1,300 fashion characteristics broken down into eight categories: type, shape/silhouette, color, pattern/print, material, details/trim, brand, and style/context. Using this dataset, the search engine server 120 trains a two-layer neural network using a regression loss function over all 1,300 characteristics. Then, the search engine server 120 leverages these pre-trained layers to train one additional neuron per characteristic, allowing the disclosed model to capture fashion characteristics with only few representative examples in the training set.”
Examiner’s Note: The search engine is read as the explanation engine, and the visual semantic embedder serves as the terminology module within its respective engine. The terminology in the art is all the collected lexicon of fashion characteristics that come from the fashion domain, such as the 75,000 fashion products from fashion retailer website Net-A-Porter, which is pertinent to the field and problem to be solved. These terminology assignments, AKA the trainings of one neuron per characteristic, are done through a multi-layer neural network to produce explanations.)
Forsyth fails to teach: …as well as one or more intermediate output results from intermediate layers of the machine-based reasoning process…
However, Chatterjee teaches: that uses machine learning to support an explanation of how the machine-based reasoning process arrived at its reported results of both a top-level result as well as corresponding intermediate output results, (Col 5 Lines 47-67 & Col 6 Lines 1-4 “Some classification techniques, such as those based on neural networks, may generate internal representations of the input data or intermediate data structures which are neither part of the input data, nor part of the model output. The predictions made by some such models may sometimes depend more directly on these internal representations (which may sometimes be referred to as “hidden” layers of the model) than on the raw input data values themselves… In such an embodiment, when a client requests an explanation for a particular prediction, a first level explanation may sometimes be provided in terms of the intermediate representations.”
Examiner’s Note: The particular prediction is read as the top-level result. The intermediate representations are read as the intermediate output results.)
and a messaging module of the explanation engine configured to collect the top-level result as well as one or more intermediate output results from intermediate layers of the machine-based reasoning process… (Col 5 Lines 47-67 & Col 6 Lines 1-4 “Some classification techniques, such as those based on neural networks, may generate internal representations of the input data or intermediate data structures which are neither part of the input data, nor part of the model output. The predictions made by some such models may sometimes depend more directly on these internal representations (which may sometimes be referred to as “hidden” layers of the model) than on the raw input data values themselves… In such an embodiment, when a client requests an explanation for a particular prediction, a first level explanation may sometimes be provided in terms of the intermediate representations.”
Examiner’s Note: The particular prediction is read as the top-level result. The intermediate representations are read as the intermediate output results. According to Fig. 1, the Explainer selector 160 collects these results and is read as the messaging module.)
Forsyth and Chatterjee are considered to be analogous to each other as they are all in the field of machine learning. Therefore, before the effective filing date of