DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of claims
Claims 1, 6, 12 and 20 have been amended. Claims 4 and 5 have been canceled. Claims 1-3 and 6-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments on pages 10-11 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive because they amount to a conclusory statement that the claims are eligible under 101 without any explanation as to how the limitations that were previously rejected in claims 4 and 5 overcome the rejection. Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-17, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-20 has been withdrawn.
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 1-3 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 For All Claims
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Regarding Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, claims 1-3 and 6-11 are directed to a system (a machine), claims 12-19 are directed to a method (a process), and claim 20 is directed to a system (a machine), which each fall within one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 1
Step 2A, prong 1 – Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Claim 1 recites the following mental processes, that in each case under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, determination) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components:
“compute a respective plurality of input distribution feature vectors that encode the plurality of input marginal distributions”. As drafted and under its BRI, this limitation falls under the abstract idea of a mental process. As drafted, the BRI of this limitation encompasses, if provided the input marginal distribution, determine or evaluate a vector representing each input marginal distribution, such as by recording quartile values, moments, and the value of the marginal distribution at each quartile value in a vector for each input marginal distribution by writing the values in a sequence on a piece of paper.
“based at least in part on the plurality of input distribution feature vectors and the one or more dependencies, compute, by a first trained machine learning model, one or more first output distribution feature vectors that encode one or more first output marginal distributions, respectively”. As drafted and under its BRI, this limitation falls under the abstract idea of a mental process. As drafted, the BRI of this limitation encompasses, if provided the output marginal distribution, determine or evaluate a vector representing each output marginal distribution, such as by recording the quartile values, moments, and the value of the output marginal distribution at each quartile value in a vector for each output marginal distribution by writing the values in a sequence on a piece of paper. The examiner notes that, as written, the claim requires the process be performed at the model, which may refer to a setting or environment in which to perform the computation. As written, the claim does not require that the trained machine learning model be utilized in the computation.
“based at least in part on the one or more first output distribution feature vectors, at a second trained machine learning model, compute one or more second output distribution feature vectors that encode one or more second output marginal distributions, respectively”. As drafted and under its BRI, this limitation falls under the abstract idea of a mental process. As drafted, the BRI of this limitation encompasses, if provided the second output marginal distribution, determine or evaluate a vector representing each second output marginal distribution, such as by utilizing the same format utilized to encode the first output distribution feature vectors, such as recording the quartile values, moments, and the value of the marginal distribution at each quartile value in a vector for each second output marginal distribution by writing the values in a sequence on a piece of paper.
“at a third trained machine learning model, the one or more processors are further configured to compute one or more third output distribution feature vectors that encode one or more third output marginal distributions, respectively”. As drafted and under its BRI, this limitation falls under the abstract idea of a mental process. As drafted, the BRI of this limitation encompasses, if provided the third output marginal distribution, determine or evaluate a vector representing each third output marginal distribution, such as by recording the quartile values, moments, and the value of the marginal distribution at each quartile value in a vector for each third output marginal distribution by writing the values in a sequence on a piece of paper. It is noted that being “configured to” does not require performing the computation.
Because the claim recites limitations which can practically be implemented as mental processes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “one or more processors configured to, during a runtime phase… a respective plurality of input distribution feature vectors that encode the plurality of input marginal distributions; based at least in part on the plurality of input distribution feature vectors and the one or more dependencies…, at a first trained machine learning model, one or more first output distribution feature vectors that encode one or more first output marginal distributions, respectively”. Such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981)). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “receive a plurality of input marginal distributions; receive one or more dependencies between two or more of the input marginal distributions”, which 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “compute, at a first trained machine learning model, one or more first output distribution feature vectors that encode one or more first output marginal distributions, respectively”, which 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. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “and output the one or more first output distribution feature vectors”, which amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of output the one or more second output distribution feature vectors”, which amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “the second trained machine learning model is further configured to receive the one or more third output distribution feature vectors as input when the one or more second output distribution feature vectors are computed” which 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. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the element of “one or more processors configured to, during a runtime phase… a respective plurality of input distribution feature vectors that encode the plurality of input marginal distributions; based at least in part on the plurality of input distribution feature vectors and the one or more dependencies…, at a first trained machine learning model, one or more first output distribution feature vectors that encode one or more first output marginal distributions, respectively” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as explained above, which is not significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As discussed above, the element of “receive a plurality of input marginal distributions; receive one or more dependencies between two or more of the input marginal distributions” 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 element of “compute, at a first trained machine learning model, one or more first output distribution feature vectors that encode one or more first output marginal distributions, respectively” 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. Accordingly, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above, the element of “and output the one or more first output distribution feature vectors” amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of output the one or more second output distribution feature vectors”, which amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “the second trained machine learning model is further configured to receive the one or more third output distribution feature vectors as input when the one or more second output distribution feature vectors are computed” which 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. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (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.
Claim 2
Step 2A, prong 1 – Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
The claim is directed to the same abstract ideas set forth above.
Step 2A, prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “wherein each input distribution feature vector of the plurality of input distribution feature vectors includes, for a corresponding input marginal distribution of the plurality of input marginal distributions: a plurality of input quantile values and a plurality of input moments; a plurality of coordinates of a spline; or a plurality of coefficients of a mixture model”. Such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981)). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional element individually or in combination does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the element of “wherein each input distribution feature vector of the plurality of input distribution feature vectors includes, for a corresponding input marginal distribution of the plurality of input marginal distributions: a plurality of input quantile values and a plurality of input moments; a plurality of coordinates of a spline; or a plurality of coefficients of a mixture model” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as explained above, which is not significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element individually or in combination does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3
Step 2A, prong 1 – Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
The claim is directed to the same abstract ideas set forth above.
Step 2A, prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “wherein each output distribution feature vector of the one or more first output distribution feature vectors includes, for a corresponding first output marginal distribution of the one or more first output marginal distributions, a plurality of output quantile values and a plurality of output moments”. Such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981)). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional element individually or in combination does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the element of “wherein each output distribution feature vector of the one or more first output distribution feature vectors includes, for a corresponding first output marginal distribution of the one or more first output marginal distributions, a plurality of output quantile values and a plurality of output moments” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as explained above, which is not significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element individually or in combination does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6
Step 2A, prong 1 – Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
The claim recites in part:
“compute one or more additional dependencies between a plurality of marginal distributions including the one or more first output marginal distributions and the one or more third output marginal distributions”. As drafted and under its BRI, this limitation falls under the abstract idea of a mental process. As drafted, the BRI of this limitation encompasses evaluating relationships between marginal distributions, such as by computing a copula over the dependent variables associated with the marginal distributions, if provided the marginal distributions including the first output marginal distributions and the third output marginal distributions.
Because the claim recites a limitation which can practically be implemented as mental processes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “wherein: the one or more processors are further configured to compute one or more additional dependencies between a plurality of marginal distributions including the one or more first output marginal distributions and the one or more third output marginal distributions, as encoded by the one or more first output distribution feature vectors and the one or more third output distribution feature vectors; the second trained machine learning model is further configured to receive the one or more additional dependencies as input when the one or more second output distribution feature vectors are computed”. Such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981)). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “the second trained machine learning model is further configured to receive the one or more additional dependencies as input when the one or more second output distribution feature vectors are computed”, which 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the element of “wherein: the one or more processors are further configured to compute one or more additional dependencies between a plurality of marginal distributions including the one or more first output marginal distributions and the one or more third output marginal distributions, as encoded by the one or more first output distribution feature vectors and the one or more third output distribution feature vectors; the second trained machine learning model is further configured to receive the one or more additional dependencies as input when the one or more second output distribution feature vectors are computed” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as explained above, which is not significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As discussed above, the element of “the second trained machine learning model is further configured to receive the one or more additional dependencies as input when the one or more second output distribution feature vectors are computed” 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.
Claim 7
Step 2A, prong 1 – Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
The claim is directed to the same abstract ideas set forth above.
Step 2A, prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “wherein the one or more dependencies between the two or more the input marginal distributions are correlation coefficients between pairs of the input marginal distributions that are indicated in a correlation matrix”. Such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981)). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional element individually or in combination does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the element of “wherein the one or more dependencies between the two or more the input marginal distributions are correlation coefficients between pairs of the input marginal distributions that are indicated in a correlation matrix” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as explained above, which is not significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element individually or in combination does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8
Step 2A, prong 1 – Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
The claim recites in part:
“compute the one or more dependencies between the two or more input marginal distributions at least in part by computing a copula over two or more respective dependent variables”. As drafted and under its BRI, this limitation falls under the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. As drafted, the BRI of this limitation encompasses computing a metric which represents the relationships between the provided input marginal distributions at least in part by computing a copula over the dependent variables comprised by the provided input marginal distributions, such as with the aid of pencil and paper.
Because the claim recites a limitation which can practically be implemented as mathematical calculations, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to compute the one or more dependencies between the two or more input marginal distributions at least in part by computing a copula over two or more respective dependent variables”. Such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981)). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional element individually or in combination does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the element of “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to compute the one or more dependencies between the two or more input marginal distributions at least in part by computing a copula over two or more respective dependent variables” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as explained above, which is not significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element individually or in combination does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9
Step 2A, prong 1 – Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
The claim recites in part:
“computing a plurality of training output marginal distributions based on at least a plurality of training input marginal distributions and one or more training dependencies between the plurality of training input marginal distributions”. As drafted and under its BRI, this limitation falls under the abstract idea of a mental process. As drafted, the BRI of this limitation encompasses evaluating or judging a set of marginal distributions based on provided data, such as by joining pairs of the provided plurality of training input marginal distributions based on the provided dependencies with the aid of pencil and paper.
“generating a training data set including: a plurality of training input distribution feature vectors that encode the plurality of training input marginal distributions; the one or more training dependencies; and a plurality of training output distribution feature vectors that encode the plurality of training output marginal distributions”. As drafted and under its BRI, this limitation falls under the abstract idea of a mental process. As drafted, the BRI of this limitation encompasses, if provided the training input and output marginal distribution, determine or evaluate a vector representing each training input and output marginal distribution, such as by recording the quartile values, moments, and the value of the marginal distribution at each quartile value in a vector for each training input and output marginal distribution by writing the values in a sequence on a piece of paper in tandem with one or more provided training dependencies. The examiner notes, as written, this limitation is directed to generating the training dataset, which encompasses concatenating the feature vectors and dependencies, not to generating the elements that comprise the training dataset, such as the marginal distributions themselves.
Because the claim recites limitations which can practically be implemented as mental processes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “wherein, during a training phase that occurs prior to the runtime phase, the one or more processors are further configured to train the first trained machine learning model at least in part by: at a target model, computing a plurality of training output marginal distributions based on at least a plurality of training input marginal distributions and one or more training dependencies between the plurality of training input marginal distributions… a training data set including: a plurality of training input distribution feature vectors that encode the plurality of training input marginal distributions; the one or more training dependencies; and a plurality of training output distribution feature vectors that encode the plurality of training output marginal distributions; and using the training data set, training the first trained machine learning model to reproduce outputs of the target model”. Such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981)). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “at a target model, computing… training the first trained machine learning model to reproduce outputs of the target model”, which 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. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the element of “wherein, during a training phase that occurs prior to the runtime phase, the one or more processors are further configured to train the first trained machine learning model at least in part by: at a target model, computing a plurality of training output marginal distributions based on at least a plurality of training input marginal distributions and one or more training dependencies between the plurality of training input marginal distributions… a training data set including: a plurality of training input distribution feature vectors that encode the plurality of training input marginal distributions; the one or more training dependencies; and a plurality of training output distribution feature vectors that encode the plurality of training output marginal distributions; and using the training data set, training the first trained machine learning model to reproduce outputs of the target model” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as explained above, which is not significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As discussed above, the element of “at a target model, computing… training the first trained machine learning model to reproduce outputs of the target model” 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. Accordingly, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (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.
Claim 10
Step 2A, prong 1 – Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
The claim is directed to the same abstract ideas set forth above.
Step 2A, prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “wherein at least a portion of the plurality of training input marginal distributions includes empirical data”. Such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981)). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional element individually or in combination does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the element of “wherein at least a portion of the plurality of training input marginal distributions includes empirical data” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as explained above, which is not significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element individually or in combination does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11
Step 2A, prong 1 – Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
The claim recites in part:
“synthetically generate at least a portion of the plurality of training input marginal distributions”. As drafted and under its BRI, this limitation falls under the abstract idea of a mental process. As drafted, the BRI of this limitation encompasses determining a synthetic, or fake, marginal distribution, such as by selecting values at random to comprise a marginal probability distribution.
Because the claim recites a limitation which can practically be implemented as mental processes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “wherein the one or more processors are configured to synthetically generate at least a portion of the plurality of training input marginal distributions at a Monte Carlo sample generation module”, which 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. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The use of the Monte Carlo sample generation module amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981)). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional element individually or in combination does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the element of “wherein the one or more processors are configured to synthetically generate at least a portion of the plurality of training input marginal distributions at a Monte Carlo sample generation module” 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. Accordingly, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The use of the Monte Carlo sample generation module amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as explained above, which is not significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element individually or in combination does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12
Claim 12 recites a method for use with a computing system comprising substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 for being substantially similar, mutatis mutandis. The claim recites the additional feature:
Step 2A, prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “A method for use with a computing system”. Such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment through a recitation of generic computing components. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981)). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional element individually or in combination does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the element of “A method for use with a computing system” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use through a recitation of generic computing components as explained above, which is not significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element individually or in combination does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13
Claim 13 depends on claim 12 and recites a method for use with a computing system comprising substantially the same limitations as claim 2, and therefore claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as outlined above for claims 2 and 12 for being substantially similar, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 14
Claim 14 depends on claim 13 and recites a method for use with a computing system comprising substantially the same limitations as claim 3, and therefore claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as outlined above for claims 3 and 13 for being substantially similar, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 15
Claim 15 depends on claim 12 and recites a method for use with a computing system comprising substantially the same limitations as claim 4, and therefore claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as outlined above for claims 4 and 12 for being substantially similar, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 16
Claim 16 depends on claim 15 and recites a method for use with a computing system comprising substantially the same limitations as claims 5 and 6, and therefore claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as outlined above for claims 5, 6, and 15 for being substantially similar, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 17
Claim 17 depends on claim 12 and recites a method for use with a computing system comprising substantially the same limitations as claim 7, and therefore claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as outlined above for claims 7 and 12 for being substantially similar, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 18
Claim 18 depends on claim 12 and recites a method for use with a computing system comprising substantially the same limitations as claim 8, and therefore claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as outlined above for claims 8 and 12 for being substantially similar, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 19
Claim 19 depends on claim 12 and recites a method for use with a computing system comprising substantially the same limitations as claim 9, and therefore claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as outlined above for claims 9 and 12 for being substantially similar, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 20
Step 2A, prong 1 – Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Claim 20 recites the following mental processes, that in each case under the BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, determination) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components:
“compute a respective plurality of input distribution feature vectors that encode the plurality of input marginal distributions, wherein each of the plurality of input distribution feature vectors includes a respective plurality of input quantile values and a respective plurality of input moments”. As drafted and under its BRI, this limitation falls under the abstract idea of a mental process. As drafted, the BRI of this limitation encompasses, if provided the input marginal distribution, determine or evaluate a vector representing each input marginal distribution, such as by recording the quartile values, moments, and the value of the marginal distribution at each quartile value in a vector for each input marginal distribution by writing the values in a sequence on a piece of paper.
“based at least in part on the plurality of input distribution feature vectors and the plurality of correlation coefficients, compute, at a trained machine learning model, one or more first output distribution feature vectors that encode one or more output marginal distributions, respectively, wherein each of the one or more output distribution feature vectors includes a respective plurality of output quantile values and a respective plurality of output moments”. As drafted and under its BRI, this limitation falls under the abstract idea of a mental process. As drafted, the BRI of this limitation encompasses, if provided the output marginal distribution, determine or evaluate a vector representing each output marginal distribution, such as by recording the quartile values, moments, and the value of the output marginal distribution at each quartile value in a vector for each output marginal distribution by writing the values in a sequence on a piece of paper. The examiner notes that, as written, the claim requires the process be performed at the model, which may refer to a setting or environment in which to perform the computation. As written, the claim does not require that the trained machine learning model be utilized in the computation.
“based at least in part on the one or more first output distribution feature vectors, at a second trained machine learning model, compute one or more second output distribution feature vectors that encode one or more second output marginal distributions, respectively”. As drafted and under its BRI, this limitation falls under the abstract idea of a mental process. As drafted, the BRI of this limitation encompasses, if provided the second output marginal distribution, determine or evaluate a vector representing each second output marginal distribution, such as by utilizing the same format utilized to encode the first output distribution feature vectors, such as recording the quartile values, moments, and the value of the marginal distribution at each quartile value in a vector for each second output marginal distribution by writing the values in a sequence on a piece of paper.
“at a third trained machine learning model, the one or more processors are further configured to compute one or more third output distribution feature vectors that encode one or more third output marginal distributions, respectively at a third trained machine learning model, the one or more processors are further configured to compute one or more third output distribution feature vectors that encode one or more third output marginal distributions, respectively”. As drafted and under its BRI, this limitation falls under the abstract idea of a mental process. As drafted, the BRI of this limitation encompasses, if provided the third output marginal distribution, determine or evaluate a vector representing each third output marginal distribution, such as by recording the quartile values, moments, and the value of the marginal distribution at each quartile value in a vector for each third output marginal distribution by writing the values in a sequence on a piece of paper. It is noted that being “configured to” does not require performing the computation.
Because the claim recites limitations which can practically be implemented as mental processes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “one or more processors configured to, during a runtime phase:… a correlation matrix indicating one or more correlation coefficients for respective pairs of the input marginal distributions; … a respective plurality of input distribution feature vectors that encode the plurality of input marginal distributions, wherein each of the plurality of input distribution feature vectors includes a respective plurality of input quantile values and a respective plurality of input moments; based at least in part on the plurality of input distribution feature vectors and the plurality of correlation coefficients…, at a trained machine learning model, one or more first output distribution feature vectors that encode one or more output marginal distributions, respectively, wherein each of the one or more output distribution feature vectors includes a respective plurality of output quantile values and a respective plurality of output moments”. Such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981)). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “compute, at a trained machine learning model”, which 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. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “receive a plurality of input marginal distributions; receive a correlation matrix indicating one or more correlation coefficients for respective pairs of the input marginal distributions”, which 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “and output the one or more first output distribution feature vectors”, which amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “output the one or more second output distribution feature vectors”, which amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “the second trained machine learning model is further configured to receive the one or more third output distribution feature vectors as input when the one or more second output distribution feature vectors are computed” which 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. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the element of “one or more processors configured to, during a runtime phase:… a correlation matrix indicating one or more correlation coefficients for respective pairs of the input marginal distributions; … a respective plurality of input distribution feature vectors that encode the plurality of input marginal distributions, wherein each of the plurality of input distribution feature vectors includes a respective plurality of input quantile values and a respective plurality of input moments; based at least in part on the plurality of input distribution feature vectors and the plurality of correlation coefficients…, at a trained machine learning model, one or more first output distribution feature vectors that encode one or more output marginal distributions, respectively, wherein each of the one or more output distribution feature vectors includes a respective plurality of output quantile values and a respective plurality of output moments” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as explained above, which is not significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As discussed above, the element of “compute, at a trained machine learning model” 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. Accordingly, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above, the element of “receive a plurality of input marginal distributions; receive a correlation matrix indicating one or more correlation coefficients for respective pairs of the input marginal distributions” 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 element of “and output the one or more first output distribution feature vectors” amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
CONCLUSION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omar F Fernandez Rivas whose telephone number is (571)272-2589. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 5:30-3:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Wiley can be reached on (571) 272-4150. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128