DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/09/2026 has been entered.
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 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One
The claims are directed to a method (claims 1 - 18) and a computer system with structural components (claim 19). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
As to claims 1,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
b) correlating with the correlation processor a plurality of input values to determine a plurality of output results at least one output result associated with each of the plurality of input values;
c) providing a plurality of features;
d) within each of the input values determining a presence or absence of each of the plurality of features;
e) using a first computer, forming a matrix with a value of each matrix entry relating to an input value and a presence of a feature within said input value, the feature and the input value forming ordinates of the matrix entry, each feature present within an input value representing a potential cause of the associated output result;
f) using the first computer, from the matrix and without modifying or filtering the input values, determining within the matrix a set of entries each relating to a possible causal correlation correlations of the AI system comprising:
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these 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:
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
f1) automatically eliminating some entries relating to non-causal correlations from the matrix by modifying the matrix absent modifying or filtering the input values, the modifications for reducing the matrix toward a matrix absent non-causal correlations;
f2) when an end condition is other than met, returning to step fl; and
f3) when the end condition is met, providing the correlations indicated within the resulting matrix thereby as potential causal correlations.
these elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. 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)). These limitations also amount 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 claim further recites:
providing an artificial intelligence (AI) system comprising a trained correlation processor, the trained correlation processor for accepting an input value and for providing an output result corresponding to a correlated classification of the input value
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process 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 claim further recites artificial intelligence (AI) system and trained correlation processor which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of ordinates of the matrix, causal, and potential causal correlations amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As such, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
f1) automatically eliminating some entries relating to non-causal correlations from the matrix by modifying the matrix absent modifying or filtering the input values, the modifications for reducing the matrix toward a matrix absent non-causal correlations;
f2) when an end condition is other than met, returning to step fl; and
f3) when the end condition is met, providing the correlations indicated within the resulting matrix thereby as potential causal correlations.
these elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. 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)). These limitations also amount 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 claim further recites:
providing an artificial intelligence (AI) system comprising a trained correlation processor, the trained correlation processor for accepting an input value and for providing an output result corresponding to a correlated classification of the input value
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process 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 claim further recites artificial intelligence (AI) system and trained correlation processor which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of ordinates of the matrix, causal, and potential causal correlations amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 2, The limitations “wherein each column of the matrix corresponds to a feature” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As to claim 3, The limitations “wherein each row of the matrix corresponds to an input value” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As to claim 4, The limitations “wherein automatically eliminating comprises finding a reduced echelon form of the matrix and removing duplicate rows and rows that are all 0’s” are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. 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)). These limitations also amount 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”).
As to claim 5, The limitations “wherein an end condition is a non-singular square matrix” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As to claim 6, The limitations “wherein an end condition is a non-singular square matrix” are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. 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)). These limitations also amount 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”).
As to claim 7, The limitations “wherein an end condition is a non-singular square matrix” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As to claim 8, The limitations “based on the potential causal correlations, adapting the plurality of features to form a new plurality of features different from the plurality of features and then repeating the process with the new plurality of features forming the plurality of features” are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
As to claim 9, The limitations “providing a filter process for filtering input values before they are provided to the correlation processor to remove some features from the input values, the removed features known to be other than causal” are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
As to claim 12, The limitations “comparing potential causal features of the two different correlation processors” are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
As to claim 13, The limitations “forming a determination result by determining a presence or absence of a feature within an input value provided for correlation by a correlation processor; and executing one and only one of the correlation processor and the second correlation processor in dependence upon the determination result” are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. 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)). These limitations also amount 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”).
As to claim 14, The limitations “providing an input value; correlating the input value with both of the trained correlation processor and the trained second correlation processor; comparing output results of each of the trained correlation processor and the trained second correlation processor; and entering a new row into the matrices for each trained correlation processor for determining potential causal features thereof when each output result is substantially different” are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. 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)). These limitations also amount 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”).
As to claim 15, The limitations “upon performing a correlation with the trained correlation processor, the matrix is updated and step f is repeated” are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. 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)). These limitations also amount 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.
As to claim 16, the limitations “when the potentially causal features change in response to execution of the trained correlation processor, transmitting a notification of said change” which 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 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 to claim 17, the limitations “upon performing a correlation with the trained correlation processor, transmitting the output result and at least one of the input value and an indication of the features within the input value to a server; at the server, updating the matrix of features within input values; and repeating step (f)” which 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 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 to claim 18, the limitations “when the potentially causal features change in response to execution of the trained correlation processor, transmitting a notification of said change” which 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 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 to claims 19,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
a processor for executing a matrix processing process
i) for populating an initial matrix with
(a) first input values;
(b) for each of the first input values, an indication of a presence of a feature within an said input value of the plurality of input values, each first input value stored within the initial matrix at a location with ordinates of the input value and the feature associated therewith,
ii) for reducing the initial matrix into a reduced matrix in an echelon form; and
iii) for filtering the reduced matrix to form a resulting matrix, the resulting matrix indicative of a reduced set of potential causal connections between features and classification within the trained correlation processor, the resulting matrix having fewer potential causal connections than the initial matrix.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these 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:
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
a data store comprising a plurality of first output results determined by the trained correlation processor in response to a plurality of first input values, at least one output result of the plurality of first output results associated with each of the plurality of first input values; and
The claim further recites:
a trained correlation processor for producing an output result in response to input value provided thereto, the output result corresponding to a correlated classification of the input value;
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process 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 claim further recites a computer system, data store, and correlation processor, and correlation engine which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of ordinates of the matrix and echelon form amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As such, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
a data store comprising a plurality of first output results determined by the trained correlation processor in response to a plurality of first input values, at least one output result of the plurality of first output results associated with each of the plurality of first input values; and
are 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").
The claim further recites:
a trained correlation processor for producing an output result in response to input value provided thereto, the output result corresponding to a correlated classification of the input value;
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process 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 claim further recites computer system, data store, and correlation processor and correlation engine which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of ordinates of the matrix and echelon form amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The amendments overcome the 102 Rejection and the 102 Rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The amendments overcome the 103 Rejection and the 103 Rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The 101 Rejection still has not been overcome. The claims are abstract and the steps in the claims can be completed with a mental process and/or generic computer components. Additionally, the steps in the claims do not describe an improvement of technology in any way.
The applicant argues:
The claimed invention does not fall into any of these categories. Unlike claims merely reciting fundamental economic practices (Alice), commercial interactions (buySAFE, Inc. V. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014)), or basic data collection and analysis (Electric Power Group, LLC V. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), the present invention addresses specific technological problems in the field of computer science and more particularly in the field of artificial intelligence. Many trained artificial intelligence systems operate as black-box transformers - data is provided at an input and a classification is provided at an output port. Noone knows what happens in the middle and what happens is heavily reliant on training data, training data set size, etc. This makes AI correlation processors nearly impossible to analyse manually; errors (hallucinations) are common and repairing one hallucination leads to other different and unpredictable errors.
Often these other errors are unknown and not easily found. Thorough testing of LLMs, for example, is typically impossible due to the breadth of their application; hallucinations persist and eliminating one hallucination leads to others. More computational processing does not solve the issue; (1) it is often prohibitive, (2) it leads to little improvement due to the vast amount of data and the speed at which the data accumulates, and (3) there is not a linear correlation between correlation processor complexity and performance. This has become ever more apparent with the introduction of LLMs.
In fact, one of AI's advantages is its adaptability to new input values and its ability to extrapolate. These advantages make thorough testing prohibitive. The invention as claimed recites a method and system for using a computer to
evaluate causality, for example in a black-box system. Thus, the invention relates to the field of computer science and is limited to inventive subject matter that cannot be performed without a computer. The use of one or more matrices by a computer to determine causal elements is not known in the art and the method of using those one or more matrices is not present in the prior art.
This is akin to the eligible claims in Enfish, LLC V. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327(Fed. Cir. 2016), where a self-referential database structure was held eligible because it improved the functioning of the computer itself by enhancing data storage and retrieval efficiency. Similarly, here, the invention improves the underlying technology and usefulness of artificial intelligence by rendering same predictable based on actual causality.
Artificial intelligence is inherently a technological field, rooted in computers. Courts have recognized that inventions solving problems "necessarily rooted in computer technology" are not abstract (DDR Holdings, LLC V. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). In DDR Holdings, a system for generating hybrid web pages to retain website visitors was eligible because it addressed an Internet-specific challenge. Analogously, the present invention tackles issues unique to trained artificial intelligence systems, such as causality, explainability, and reliability.
The examiner disagrees. At Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite abstract ideas, including data analysis, evaluation of causality, and processing of information using matrices, which fall within the categories of mental processes. This so-called “black-box” AI environment does not remove the claims from being abstract, as the claimed steps can be performed conceptually regardless of the context.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for processing or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The alleged benefits relating to explainability, casualty or reliability are results-oriented and not tied to specific technological improvements in how computers operate.
At Step 2B, the claims do not include an inventive concept. The use of matrices and computational techniques constitutes well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field of data, analysis and artificial intelligence, Applying these techniques ion the context of AI systems does not render the claims significantly more than the abstract idea.
The applicant argues:
Even if the claims are scrutinized for potentially reciting an abstract idea, they do not. The claims here are directed to a method of addressing a concern - explainability/causation - in black box computer processes that is a concrete improvement in artificial intelligence.
This distinguishes the invention from ineligible claims like those in SAP America, Inc. V. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018), which involved generic statistical analysis without technological improvement. Here, the focus is on how the artificial intelligence system operates - making it more predictable and effective as a reliable computer-based tool.
The examiner disagrees. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s position, as the arguments presented rely on limitations that are neither explicitly recited in the claims nor reasonably inferred from them. At no point in the pending claims does the appellant assert, describe, or even suggest the limitation of “a method of addressing a concern - explainability/causation - in black box computer processes that is a concrete improvement in artificial intelligence.” Rather, the applicant appears to have introduced this language as part of the argument, but such a limitation cannot be read into the claims when it is not supported by the actual claim language. Without clear support in the claim language and without sufficient explanation of the terminology being relied upon, the examiner cannot give weight to arguments premised on these alleged limitations.
The claims recite analyzing data to determine explainability, which is an abstract idea. The applicant’s statement of a “concrete improvement to AI” is in no way supported by the claim language. The claims do non recite a specific technological improvement just making AI more predictable and effective which are just results oriented general objectives.
The applicant argues:
If the Office still maintains that the claims recite an abstract idea, the claims integrate that abstract idea into a practical application. The 2019 PEG lists indicia of integration, including improvements to computer functionality, applying the idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis, and implementing the idea with a particular machine integral to the claim.
The claimed invention satisfies multiple indicia:
Improvement to Computer Functionality: The invention enhances the performance of artificial intelligence platforms by allowing analysis and determination of causality. This is a specific, technological improvement, similar to McRO, Inc. V. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir.2016), where rules for automating lip synchronization improved computer animation processes.
Particular Machine or Transformation: The claims require specific software components to determine causality and reliability effecting a transformation under Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010).
Meaningful Limitations: The claims are confined to a particular useful application in artificial intelligence technology, avoiding preemption of any abstract idea. For instance, they do not monopolize all ways of determining causality on any data but are limited to a specific method of determining causality in a black box correlation engine based artificial intelligence system.
The examiner disagrees. The applicant mentions McRO, Inc. V. Bandai Namco and Bilski v. Kappos, as examples but the Applicant does not explain how the cited example is relevant to the presently claimed invention. The example is not tied to the claimed features, nor is any comparison provided demonstrating how it supports patent eligibility. It is unclear why the Applicant relies on this example. The applicant’s arguments improperly rely on the complexity these examples and the specification rather than the actual claims that were written.
The applicant argues:
If the analysis proceeds to Step 2B, the claims include elements that amount to "significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea, providing recitations of an inventive concept. Courts look for unconventional arrangements or additional features beyond well- understood, routine, and conventional activities (Berkheimer V. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
Here, the combination of generating data in the form of a matrix and reducing the matrix to a specific form in order to determine causality is not routine in artificial intelligence or in analyzing artificially intelligent systems. As evidenced by the specification, this arrangement solves persistent problems like unpredictability, hallucination, unreliability, and inexplainability, which conventional artificial intelligence systems (e.g., trained transformers) fail to address. This is inventive, akin to BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. V. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where a non-conventional filtering architecture rendered claims eligible.
Moreover, the invention provides specific benefits, such as improved reliability and performance for an artificial intelligence system SO analyzed.
In essence, relying on a computer to process a matrix in order to assess possible causation of a computer science related process is a method in computer technology for improving operation (for example reliability and predictability) of a computer system.
The examiner disagrees. The claimed steps of generating a matrix and reducing the matrix to determine causality amount tot data collection, manipulation, and analysis, which are well-understood, routine, and conventional. The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that the claimed arrangement represents an unconventional technical implementation as required under Berkheimer.
The improvements of reliability, predictability, and reduced hallucination, are described at a high level and are note tied to specific technological modifications in the claims. Instead, the claims merely invoke generic computer processing which does not constitute an inventive concept.
Further, unlike BASCOM, the claims do not recite a specific, non-conventional architecture or ordered combination that improves computer functionality. Rather, the claims use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not include additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018))
It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON S COLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5075. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30pm - 5pm EST (Alternate Friday's Off).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez can be reached at 571-272-2589. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRANDON S COLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128