Aims 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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to application filed on 7/7/2025.Claims 1-20 are pending examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 is drawn to a system (i.e., a machine/manufacture), claim 8 is drawn to non-transitory computer readable storage media (i.e., a machine/manufacture and claim 14 is drawn to a method (i.e., a process).
Claims 1-20 are directed to abstract idea of generating training data and training a machine learning model using mathematical and statistical techniques. Specifically, the claims recite determining a set of input vectors by analyzing one or more data sources or data models for the machine-learning system; retrieving one or more parameters for respective vectors of the set of input vectors for generating values for the respective vectors; identifying one or more methods of generating values associated with the respective input vector; generating a set of values for the set of input vectors, the generating comprising executing the method based on the one or more parameters to generate training data values for the given input vector; and training the machine-learning system via the set of values by providing the training data values to an algorithm in the machine-learning system; executing the algorithm in the machine-learning system; comparing output from the algorithm against expected output for the training data values; and updating the algorithm based on the differences between the output and the expected output, which is grouped within the Mathematical Concepts and is similar to the concept of (mathematical relationships OR mathematical formulas or equations OR mathematical calculations) Or Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claims merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) recited in the claims , such as: using statistical models, iterating training cycles, random or evenly distributed value generation, storing training data in a data base, and executing training in multiple threads , are well understood , routine and conventional activities in the field of machine learning. The claims are result oriented and do not recite any unconventional technical improvement.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 further describe the abstract idea of generating training data and training a machine learning model using mathematical and statistical techniques. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible. Accordingly, the claims are directed to abstract idea and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are therefore, non-patent eligible.
Conclusion
The closest art made of record which are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Smith et al. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0117842, Systems and Methods for Training Generative Models Using Summary Statistics and Other Constraints.
Rowell et al. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0342652, Generating Synthetic Image Data for Machine Learning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARGON N NANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4007. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM. M.S.T..
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571 272 3889. 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.
/SARGON N NANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443