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 .
Responsive to communications on
Claim 7 new
Claims 1-6 amended
Claims 1-7 pending
Final Action
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Begin Response to Arguments
Response to Arguments 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-6 were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reciting a judicial exception, an abstract idea, which has not been integrated into practical application, and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicants derive arguments from the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance by the USPTO released on January 4, 2019. Examiner does not find applicant arguments to be convincing. Examiner views, under section B, Issue 4 to be the closest to promoting patentability under 35 USC § 101. Where the invention can demonstrate an improvement by improving the security of the system. But the examiner does not believe that the claims demonstrate the improvement.
Applicant arguments are amended and new claims 1-7 are not directed to an abstract idea
Issue 1: Applicant argues amended claims cannot be construed as a mental process. Applicant states that the claims require “meta-design space using a parameter table and column parameters forming a schema for storing design space. Further, the claims require generation of an instance-level model including a design of experiment instance, experiment parameter instances, and algorithm parameter instances capturing execution-level details and runtime configuration. Additionally, the claimed execution includes iterative and conditional system level processing over input sets, including checking existence in a design space, retrieving stored results, invoking a system process when needed, and merging results into a persisted design space”
Rule: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea … As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’"
Analysis: The claim limitations recited above are viewed under BRI as well as in relation to the specification. The claim limitations require “meta-design space using a parameter table and column parameters forming a schema for storing design space” which as understood under broadest reasonable interpretation is a table used to store the information relating to the experiment such as parameters of the experiment. The terms “meta-design,” “schema,” and “design space” are abstract terms which do not restrict the function of the claim and are not explicitly defined or constrained in the specification. The presence of instances in the limitation, such as “generation of an instance-level model including a design of experiment instance, experiment parameter instances, and algorithm parameter instances capturing execution-level details and runtime configuration” is understood to be the “instance” parameter which is actually being tested/used in the experiment. The models outlined in the claims and specification encompass mathematic models being tested, where the experimental instances are the values of the parameters used for testing the model. This is something which can reasonably be performed by an individual reasonably skilled in the art. The limitations of “iterative and conditional system level processing over input sets, including checking existence in a design space, retrieving stored results, invoking a system process when needed, and merging results into a persisted design space” is understood to be observing a design space (ie: table), observing values from the table and putting results into the table. This can be performed by an individual reasonably skilled in the art with a piece of paper. The process of designing an experiment Is a basic tool of scientific work and therefore recites an abstract idea.
Conclusion: Applicant arguments are considered non-persuasive. Claims 1-7 are considered to recite an abstract idea.
Issue 2: Applicant reference example 39 from the subject matter eligibility examples. Applicant outlines claim limitations which the applicant relates t example 39 of the subject matter eligibility examples, and argues that the “the claim does not recite a mental process because the steps are not practically performed in the human mind rather performed by the hardware processors for defining design of an experiment and generate a result for the defined design of the experiment, by executing the design of the experiment.” Applicant argues “All these steps need a computer to perform and cannot be performed using a human mind.”
Rule: Applicant quotes: "Method for Training a Neural Network for Facial Detection" in Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas, Applicant referred to pages 8-9 stating that under Step-2A analysis it is explicitly mentioned that "The claim does not recite any of the judicial exceptions enumerated in the 2019 PEG. For instance, the claim does not recite any mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations. While some of the limitations may be based on mathematical concepts, the mathematical concepts are not recited in the claims. Further, the claim does not recite a mental process because the steps are not practically performed in the human mind. Finally, the claim does not recite any method of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people. Thus, the claim is eligible because it does not recite a judicial exception".
Analysis: Examiner disagrees with the assertion that all the recited steps in the claim need a computer to perform and cannot be performed using the human mind. Under 101 analyses, not every limitation in the claim needs to recite an abstract idea. For example, “The model driven sub-system includes
one or more hardware processors, one or more communication interfaces, and one or more
memory storing a plurality of instructions” does not recite an abstract idea but is considered the usage of generic computer machinery to perform the judicial exception recited above in steps 2A prong 2 and step 2B. The example 39 given by applicants is structurally different than the claimed invention. The claimed invention pertains to the usage of a computer to conduct a design of experiments workflow. Example 39 is a method for training a neural network. The claims, of example 39 pertain to receiving facial images from a database, applying transformations to the images, and training the neural network using the training sets.
Conclusion: Applicant arguments are considered non-persuasive. Claims 1-7 are considered to recite an abstract idea.
Issue 3: Applicant argues that the claimed steps of the invention “cannot be viewed individually; the claimed steps as a whole provide a technical solution to Design of Experiments (DOE), and, more particularly, to a model driven sub-system for design and execution of experiments.” Applicant also states that “All these steps need a computer to perform and cannot be performed using a human mind.”
Rule: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea … As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" And “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind”
Analysis: As a whole the claims pertain to a workflow which performs design of experiments. As a whole, the design of experiments is a basic scientific tool used to plan experiments to ensure edge cases are covered or variables are optimized. This is a process which is performed by scientists with and without the usage of a computer. Furthermore, the claims requiring the presence of a computer does not distinguish the claims from pertaining to a mental process, as the patent eligible invention contains claim limitations which could be performed via pen and paper or in a persons mind. Regarding the assertion of a technical solution, this will be addressed in arguments relating to step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Conclusion: Applicant arguments are considered non-persuasive. Claims 1-7 are considered to recite an abstract idea.
Issue 4: Applicant cites paragraphs from specifications, 64-67, 77, 55, and 76 which outline the column parameter sub system components, the flow diagram of the process, the instance level snap shots of the model, the visual display and user interface, and the algorithms used in the flowchart of the experiment. Applicant argues that it is evident from the above cited paragraphs that the result is not an abstract idea, and also mentions that the result prevents data security issues.
Rule: MPEP 2145 (V1) states “Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.”
MPEP 2106.05(a) states “After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"). The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification). In making this determination, it is critical that examiners look at the claim "as a whole," in other words, the claim should be evaluated "as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps." When performing this evaluation, examiners should be "careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims" by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1100”
Analysis: Presented paragraphs, while they outline the presence of subsystems, algorithms, and components used in the claim, are not read into the claims during analysis. Under 101 analysis, not every claim limitation needs to be directed to an abstract idea. Regarding the assertion that the results prevent data security issues, it is not clear how the above paragraphs or claims support the assertion that the claimed result prevents data security issues. From the examiners’ understanding, the data security occurs because the sub-system can work on the legacy systems data without requiring the legacy system to send the data elsewhere for processing. This topic will be further expanded in arguments relating to Step 2A prong 2, where improving security can provide a benefit to a computer system, but it is important to note that the claim should disclose this improvement. In order for the claim to disclose the improvement, the claim must outline the steps performed that lead to the increased security of the legacy system.
Conclusion: Applicant arguments are considered non-persuasive. Claims 1-7 are considered to recite an abstract idea.
Applicant arguments related to Step 2A prong 2 considerations
Issue 1: Applicant references paragraphs 77 and 76 from specifications. Applicant argues that the invention “operates within the technical domain of a computer program where a digital workflow with one or more in-silico experiments in a model-driven system is provided to address limitations of conventional methods”
Rule: MPEP 2145 (V1) states “Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.”
MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) states “However, 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.”
Analysis: Arguments relating to addressing limitations of conventional methods seem to be directed to improvements towards the process of design of experiments. Where the “conventional methods” is implied to be methods performed by hand or older systems. As outlined, the claimed invention is an improved method for conducting a design of experiment. This is an improvement to the judicial exception of creating a design of experiment, rather than an improvement to a computer or technology.
Conclusion: Applicant arguments are considered non-persuasive.
Issue 2: Applicant argues mentioned paragraphs 62-63, 74-75, and 78. Applicant argues “Therefore, the above-mentioned paragraphs indicate that these elements reflect improvements in data processing, storage, and execution of design of experiments within a model-driven system, rather than merely invoking a generic computer”
Rule: The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic 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 (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, this claim limitation does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Analysis: As outlined, the above steps pertain to data processing, storage and execution of design of experiments. The execution of design of experiments is the execution of the judicial exception. The storage and data processing are usages of computers in their ordinary capacity for storing and transmitting data. The claims and specifications do not disclose relevant improvements to storage or data processing technology. By that the examiner means that the claimed invention does not provide a method which improves the storage capacity of a computer but rather uses a computer to store data related towards the judicial exception.
Conclusion: Applicant arguments are considered non-persuasive.
Issue 3: applicant cites paragraphs 46 and 54 of the specifications, “asserts that integration of a judicial exception into a practical application is achieved in terms of an improvement to computing technology and/or improving the functionality of the computer (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(l) and 2106.05(a))” with the technical advancement being a model driven sub-system for design and execution of experiments.
Rule: MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) states “However, 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) states “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)). Thus, it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field.”
Analysis: As stated above, the claim does not outline how the functioning of a computer system is improved. The claim or specifications do not cause a computing system to have optimized storage, improve processing power, etc. Rather, the claims are directed to improving the design of experiment process itself. This does not constitute improving a technology, as the design of experiment process was determined to be the judicial exception, which does not constitute as an improvement to technology.
Conclusion: Applicant arguments are considered non-persuasive.
Issue 4: Applicant cites claim 1 as well as paragraphs 3 and 4 of the specifications, quoting the specifications “most of the times the systems that originally generate or store the data may not be able to perform the data processing for the DOE. As a result, the data may have to be transferred to an external storage medium or one or more external systems having data processing capability to perform the DOE. Further, the external systems may have to be given rights to access the data, which may cause data security issues."
Rules: MPEP 2106.05(a) states “After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"). The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification). In making this determination, it is critical that examiners look at the claim "as a whole," in other words, the claim should be evaluated "as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps." When performing this evaluation, examiners should be "careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims" by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1100”
Analysis: the data processing system for a design of experiment, where the original system cannot perform the DOE process and requires external system instead must be used, where the subsystem of the claimed invention prevents the necessity to use an external system, hereby improving data security of the system, as viewed by the examiner, potentially constitutes an improvement in technology. Using a separate subsystem to enable the DOE to be solved is not an abstract idea as it cannot be performed in the mind. Furthermore, this improvement is not a part of the abstract idea. The improvement is derived from allowing a system (which cannot perform a DOE process) to now be able to perform said DOE process when it previously could not, which improves data security. In relation to claim 1, the examiner notes that the claims pertain to the actual DOE process. This process is the judicial exception and therefore cannot constitute improvement. To inherit this technological improvement from the claim into the specifications, the claim should disclose the improvement. The claim does not have to state “this improves security” but the claim should disclose, the aspect of having an original system which stores data but cannot perform data processing for DOE, where the subsystem is added to the system to enable DOE. This would allow the applicant to argue that the claimed invention now provides an improvement to security of the main system and improves the main systems capability to perform a design of experiment process.
Conclusion: Applicant arguments are considered non-persuasive. However, examiner notes that the improvement disclosed in paragraphs 4 could provide an improvement if integrated into the claim.
Issue 5: “Applicant asserts that an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way in terms of an improvement to computing technology improving the functionality of the computer” with the capability to “perform the design and execution of experiments, so as to enable the model driven system to design and evaluate design of experiment problems, …”
Rule: MPEP 2106.05(a) states “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)). Thus, it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field.”
Analysis: As stated previously, “improving a computer” by having the computer perform the judicial exception, does not constitute an improvement in technology or improving the functionality of the computer. Rather, this is an improvement towards the judicial exception itself and using a computer to perform the judicial exception. In order to argue improving the functionality of the computer, the improvement needs to come from additional elements. See Issue 4 above, where improving the security of the legacy system could be viewed as an improvement to the technology.
Conclusion: Applicant arguments are considered non-persuasive. However, examiner notes that the improvement disclosed in paragraph 4 could provide an improvement if integrated into the claim.
Issue 6: Applicant further asserts that the below-mentioned description and tables from paragraphs [0079]-[0098] of the published application show improvement in generating final output by Applicant's claimed model
Rule: MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) states “However, 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.”
Analysis: An improvement to the output of the model is an improvement of the abstract idea itself. While the claimed invention may provide a better design of experiment analysis then could be performed by hand by one ordinarily skilled in the art, this is an improvement of the design of experiment, not the computer which is performing the DOE process.
Conclusion: Applicant arguments are considered non-persuasive. However, examiner notes that the improvement disclosed in paragraph 4 could provide an improvement if integrated into the claim.
Applicant arguments related to Step 2A prong 2 considerations
Issue 1: Applicant references many paragraphs from the specification as well as features from amended claim 1, including paragraphs 77, 76, 91 62-63, and 74-75. Applicant argues that amended claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. “Applicant asserts that the claimed subject matter provides technical advancement for a model driven sub-system for design and execution of experiments.”
Rule: MPEP 2106.05 states “Te second part of the Alice/Mayo test is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71-72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (2012)). An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 21-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 (after determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, "we then ask, ‘[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?") (emphasis added)); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"). Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).
Analysis: In order for the claim to recite subject matter which provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself, the claim limitations cannot be furnished from the abstract exception itself (the DOE process), instead the improvement must come from additional elements. The additional elements found in the claim were determined to be the application of generic computer machinery to perform the judicial exception of a DOE process and therefore do not amount to significantly more. In regard to the technical advancement, this has been discussed above, where the examiner interprets this improvement to be towards the judicial exception rather than towards technology.
Conclusion: Applicant arguments are considered non-persuasive. However, examiner notes that the improvement disclosed in paragraph 4 could provide significantly more if integrated into the claim.
Response to Arguments 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, and 5 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20210326501 A1) “Data Set Generation For Performance Evaluation” (Lekivetz_2018), “Noise generator with programmable distribution” (Mahmood_1987) and further in view of (US 20210124858 A1) “Transformation And Evaluation Of Disallowed Combinations In Designed Experiments” (Morgan_2018)
Claims 2, 4, and 6 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lekivetz_2018, Mahmood_1987, Morgan_2018, and further in consideration of “SQL EXISTS Operator” (W3Schools_2017) as motivated by “OLAP, ROLAP, MOLAP,HOLAP” (Sisense_2018)
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-6 in view of all newly added limitations has been fully considered and are persuasive. The examiner believes the cited references on record of Lekivetz_2018, Mahmood_1987, Morgan_2018, W3Schools_2017 and Sisense_2018 do not make obvious the newly amended claim 1 when viewed in combination with all the newly added limitations. Please See conclusion section below with relevant prior art with an evaluation of what is taught in the prior art.
End Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 3, and 5 state “uses legacy components as well components of the model” The specification does not outline the term “well components.” The claim was likely meant to be written as “uses legacy components as well [as] components of the model”
Claim 1, 3, and 5 state “wherein the legacy components are reused and model driven sub-system contains one or more of data components” The claim was likely meant to be written as wherein the legacy components are reused and [the] model driven sub-system contains one or more of data components
Claims 1, 3, and 5 state “wherein the execution of design of experiment problem is triggered from the existing system, a second level snapshot of a first level model is created to store the run-time value of entities.“ Was likely meant to be written as wherein [when] the execution of design of experiment problem is triggered from the existing system, a second level snapshot of a first level model is created to store the run-time value of entities.“
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 state enabling access and authorization for managing repository of one or more algorithms in the system, if the one or more algorithms meet a set of input and output specification;
Par 46: “At this step, the sub-system 100 provides a list of input generator and distribution generator algorithms to the system to facilitate the selection of at least one input generator and distribution generator for the experiment. This allows the system to have access and authorization to manage the repository of algorithms in the sub-system 100, (Examiner note: The system has access based on the list provided by the subsystem, not based on the i/o specifications) which in turn allows the system to create one or more algorithms in the sub-system 100 if they meet a set of input/output specifications of the sub- system 100.“ (Examiner note: the creation of the algorithm is what managed by the specifications, not the enabling of access).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, 3, and 5 states “the existing system” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claim.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, an abstract idea, which has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1
Step 1: Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? :
YES. The claim recites A model driven sub-system (100) for design and execution of experiments which is a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1, inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?":
YES. Claim 1 recites
define design of an experiment, comprising:
defining a design of an experiment, under broadest reasonable interpretation, entails planning done by a scientist on what they would like to test and the steps to accomplish their goals. Ever since the creation of the scientific method, researchers have designed experiments using their brains, by providing their opinions on what to test, and from passing an evaluation of their past experiments. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.“ Therefore this claim limitation recites an abstract idea.
selecting a system process for the experiment
In light of the specifications, selecting a system process under broadest reasonable interpretation is selecting a function or workflow that relates parameters in an experiments. The specification gives an example of par 49: “The process for calculation of deflection is a function of xl,x2...xn, where xl...xn can be geometric parameters of beam and material properties of beam, results in y which is beam deflection, thus the process can be represented as: y = F(l,w,h,t) where y= beam deflection, 1= length of beam, w =width of beam, h =height of beam, t = tensile strength of beam material. Here, F() is the system process and 1, w, h, t are the system process parameters. “ Selecting a system process, can be interpreted as selecting a function that a researcher wants to experiment. This limitation relates to a selection, which is a decision made with a researcher’s opinion or judgement. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. “ Because this limitation pertains to making a selection, which can be performed in the human mind, this limitation recites an abstract idea.
creating a functional model for the selected system process if the functional model does not already exist
In light of the specifications, creating a functional model for a selected system process, means to more specifically create a function instance that relates all the parameters together in a more concrete way. From par 50 : “The sub-system 100 creates a functional model Ffm and a functional model parameter for each system process parameter lfm wfm, hfm,tfm,.” This is a more specific instance of the system process outlined earlier. If the researchers find that they have not tested a selected system process before, they will decide to create a “functional model” of that process, which will later involve defining the range of parameters for experimentation, how they relate to each other, and so on. The “functional model” is not a concrete object, and is simply an extension of the system process outlined above. Researchers when designing experiments normally outline the variables they would like to test as well as the ranges of these variables they would like to study. This is a process usually done by hand, where researches can write down on pieces of paper what they would like to test. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. “ Because this limitation pertains to a planning stage done by researchers, this limitation recites an abstract idea.
, wherein the functional model captures definition of a function on which perturbation and analysis is performed, wherein the functional model form multiple design of experiment definition;
As stated above, In light of the specifications, creating a functional model for a selected system process means to more specifically create a function instance that relates all the parameters together in a more concrete way. The functional model containing the definition of a function on which perturbation and analysis is performed requires the functional model to explain the model being tested, see par 50: “The sub-system 100 creates a functional model Ffm and a functional model parameter for each system process parameter lfm wfm, hfm,tfm,.” Wherein the functional model form multiple design of experiment definitions means the model pertains to different designs of experiments. As outlined, this is a further recitation of the creation of a functional model, which was determined to be a limitation pertaining to a planning stage done by researchers, which recites an abstract idea.
mapping each functional parameter in the functional model with corresponding ontology parameters;
In light of the specifications, mapping each functional parameter in the functional model with corresponding ontology parameters, means to relate the parameters in the model to parameters people are familiar with in their own ontology of a specific field. Like in par 49: “where y= beam deflection, 1= length of beam, w =width of beam, h =height of beam, t = tensile strength of beam material.” Researchers commonly do this in experiments, where they relate variables to each other (ie: y = 2x) then later define those variables in research papers to give context. This is an evaluation performed by a researcher to state which variable relates to what in the real world. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. “ Because this limitation pertains to a planning stage done by researchers, this limitation recites an abstract idea.
initializing a meta-design space for the functional model
A meta-design space is data associated with the model. Par 46: “Further at step 312, the sub-system 100 initializes meta design space for the functional model. At this stage, the sub-system 100 initializes the parameter table and associates it with the functional model. The sub-system 100 also initializes one and only one column parameter for each functional model parameter of the functional model. The parameter table along with column parameters formulate the schema to store meta design space of respective design of the functional model.” This space is essentially a table or coordinate grid with the possible parameter values. Often when designing an experiments, researchers and scientist write tables out when planning their experiments. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) states “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” Because this limitation can be performed in the mind of a researcher with the aid of a pen and paper, this limitation pertains to an abstract idea.
creating the experiment from the functional model, wherein a plurality of experiment parameters of the experiment conform to the functional parameters of the functional model;
“creating the experiments” in this context is choosing the parameters that would like to be tested that meets within the bounds of the already planned model. For example in par 51: “For example, the DOE is performed when length does not exceed 35cm and the material tensile strength can not exceed 500 psi, thus the sub-system 100 can create an experiment with respective range for experiment parameters. The DOE may have to be performed on the functional model within a closed range of process parameter values, thus for each such DOE, the sub-system 100 creates an experiment, F X, for the functional model and experiment parameters for each functional model parameter, 1exwe,h,te,yex that contain the configuration of process parameters. “ This is a researcher deciding that they would like to experiments on a certain condition (l<35cm) and enforcing that on the functional model. This is normally done by researchers when trying to research some phenomena in different environments, and is a normal facet of research. The scientist simply updates or rewrites his table to exclude parameters from the functional model that does not line up with the chosen experimental parameters. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) states “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” Because this limitation can be performed in the mind of a researcher with the aid of a pen and paper, this limitation pertains to an abstract idea.
attaching the experiment parameters with the functional parameters
Par 28: “The experiment parameter is linked to only one functional model parameter that specifies the function parameter for which configuration is applicable.” This limitation links the experiments parameter with the already defined functional parameter. This is an observation or judgement made by a researcher, (ie: I would like to test when l<35cm, this experiments parameter is attached to the functional parameter of length). The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) states “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” Because this limitation can be performed in the mind of a researcher with the aid of a pen and paper, this limitation pertains to an abstract idea.
selecting an input generator and a distribution generator for the design of the experiment;
Selecting an input generator and distribution generator, is deciding how the parameter values will be distributed in the experiments. For example, one may decide that the input generator will choose parameter values uniformly distributed across all allowable values with a noisy distribution. This is a selection of an algorithm. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. “ Because this limitation pertains to making a selection, which can be performed in the human mind, this limitation recites an abstract idea.
and generate a result for the defined design of the experiment, by executing the design of the experiment.
Generating a result for the defined design of the experiments by executing design of the experiments is to come up with the final product of the experimental design. As already stated defining a design of an experiment, under broadest reasonable interpretation, entails planning done by a scientist on what they would like to test and the steps to accomplish their goals. Ever since the creation of the scientific method, researchers have designed experiments using their brains, by providing their opinions on what to test, and from passing an evaluation of their past experiments. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.“ Therefore this claim limitation recites an abstract idea.
and perform multiple simultaneous executions of the defined design of experiment
Multiple simultaneous executions of the designed design of experiment means to generate a result by executing the experiments in parallel. Generating a result for the defined design of the experiments by executing design of the experiments is to come up with the final product of the experimental design. Or is similarly understood as processing the functional model to determining a numeric result associated with the functional model and the chosen parameters. This claim limitation encompasses an individual ordinarily skilled in the art to come up with multiple experimental designs. For example, determining multiple equations to test, and solving those equations to get optimal values for testing. Because this claim is a further recitation of the process of “executing a design of experiment” the claim recites an abstract idea.
wherein the meta-design space is implemented using a parameter table associated with the functional model and one or more column parameters,wherein the parameter table and the one or more column parameters formulate a schema to store a design space of the functional model,wherein each of the one or more column parameters is linked to an experiment parameter instance
par 37 – 38: “Experiment Parameter Instance (Sub-System Component): This entity captures the execution level details of function parameter configuration such as range bounds, standard deviation, and default/constant value of parameter. “This is the details for the experiment we already generated. Fetching and storing these details as an “experimental parameter instance” is the same as a researcher deciding which values they would like to run. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.“ Therefore this claim limitation recites an abstract idea.
Par 38 – 40: “Parameter Table (Sub-System Component): This entity captures the design space information of design of experiment which includes the input and output value of each run of experiment, thus the format for data persistence is preferred to be a table. This entity contains pointer to a data storage structure. Each parameter table must have only one design of experiment instance. Further, each parameter table must have one or more than one column parameter.
Column Parameter (Sub-System Component): This entity captures the column information (input/output parameters) of a design space. Each column parameter is linked to an experiment parameter instance to specify which function parameter is referred by this column. Also, each column parameter must have only one parameter table. “
This relates to the design space of the experiment. Creating tables of parameter values with columns is commonly performed by researches when doing experiments to match up different values that are tested. A schema to store a design space describes some space which stores the table of values. This can be understood as a piece of paper which has a table of values used by a researcher or a mental map. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) states “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” Because this claim pertains to filling in a table for the values of an experiment, which can be done by researchers on a piece of paper, this limitation pertains to an abstract idea.
wherein execution of the defined design of the experiment comprises generating an instance-level model including a design of experiment instance, one or more experiment parameter instances, and one or more algorithm parameter instances,
An experiment’s instance of the defined design is the details of the design of a particular experiment. See par 36-37: “Design of Experiment Instance (Sub-System Component): This entity is to capture the execution level details of design of experiment. Being the bridge entity for communication between different modules of sub-system the design space will be associated with this entity. “As already stated under claim 1, defining a design of an experiment, under broadest reasonable interpretation, entails planning done by a scientist on what they would like to test and the steps to accomplish their goals. Ever since the creation of the scientific method, researchers have designed experiments using their brains, by providing their opinions on what to test, and by passing an evaluation of their past experiments. This limitation is an observation of this experiment design to use in this experimental instance. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.“ Therefore this claim limitation recites an abstract idea.
The algorithm parameter instance is in par 44: “entity captures the value of algorithm parameter.” The algorithm under broadest reasonable interpretation is an equation and can be fetched and stored within the mind of a scientist and is used to generate inputs. An example can be uniform distribution. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) states “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” Because this claim pertains to filling in a table for the values of an experiment, which can be done and calculated by researchers on a piece of paper, this limitation pertains to an abstract idea.
As understood, a design of experiment instance is one instance use case of the design of experiment created. This is the aggregate result of the mental processes above (a particular instance of parameters and algorithms used) and therefore is a further recitation of the abstract idea.
wherein the model driven sub-system functions as a stand-alone system if the user opts not to reuse the legacy component,
This is a choice made by a user to choose if they would like to re-use the legacy component. The legacy component in view of the specification includes input output ontologies “System Process Parameter (legacy component): [022] Every system process has corresponding input and outputs defined in the system ontology, and the system process parameter block is used to represent such components.“ This is a choice of a user to decide if they would like to use existing ontologies, and therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
wherein the execution of design of experiment problem is triggered from the existing system,
This claim limitation states that the design of experiment (the judicial exception) starts from the existing system. This is a user on the existing system deciding to execute the design of experiment but performed on a computer. Deciding to run a design of experiment can be performed by an individual in their mind. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.” Therefore, the claim limitation recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO. Claim 1 additionally recites
consisting of a digital workflow with one or more in-silico experiments in a model-driven system,
As stated, this workflow above can be reasonably be performed in the human mind of a researcher and has been performed by scientists who plan out experiments. The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic 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 (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, the fact that the workflow of the experiments is occurring digitally, and the experiments themselves are in a computer environment, does not take integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
comprising: one or more hardware processors (104); one or more communication interfaces (106); and one or more memory (102) storing a plurality of instructions, wherein the plurality of instructions when executed cause the one or more hardware processors (104) to:
The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic 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 (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, the presence of computer components to perform the abstract idea above does not take integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
; enabling access and authorization for managing repository of one or more algorithms in the system, if the one or more algorithms meet a set of input and output specification;
This claim limitation attempts to apply the judicial exception of managing algorithms in the subsystem by stating that the access and authorization of the algorithms is based on specifications. The claims and specifications do not outline what is meant by enabling access and authorization for managing repository of one or more algorithm, does not outline what these input and output specifications pertain, and furthermore does not relate the access and authorization of managing repositories to the judicial exception itself. See also the 112(a) rejection above.
The MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) states “The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words ‘apply it’”
Because the claim limitation does not restrict how the solution of “enabling access” is performed to manage a repository with no description of how it is accomplished, the claim limitation is recited as being equivalent to the words apply it.
capturing execution-level details and runtime configuration of the defined design of the experiment;
The specification does not describe what an execution-level detail is. However, the specification does state par 41: “Design of Experiment Step Instance (Sub-System Component): [041] This entity captures the execution level details of design of experiment step, each step may have multiple design of experiment step instances (one for each execution).“ This leads the examiner to understand the execution level details to be the series of experimental step instances of the design of experiments.
The specification does not describe what the runtime configurations are. However the specification does state “experiment problem is triggered from the existing system a second level snapshot of the first level model is created to store the run-time values of entities” As understood by the examiner this is a capture of what values were used in the experiment.
The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic 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 (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”
As outlined above, the execution-level details and runtime configuration of the defined design of the experiment are pieces of data. Where “capture” is a textual replacement of “storing data” Therefore this claim limitation does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because it is the usage of a regular computer for its ordinary task of storing data.
providing the generated result by executing the defined design of experiment to a user through a visual display,
The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic 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 (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Providing a display to display something to a user is the usage of a generic computer component for its ordinary purpose of displaying data which was generated through the judicial exception. Therefore, this claim limitation does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
wherein the model driven sub-system when plugged into a model driven system, then the model driven system uses legacy components as well components of the model driven sub-system to perform designing and execution of the defined design of experiment, wherein the legacy components are reused and model driven sub-system contains one or more of data components,
As stated previously, the performance of DOE process is an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim does not outline what is meant by “plugged into.” Instead, the claim states that when the sub-system is plugged into the modern driven system, the judicial exception performs using the components of the systems. Furthermore, these legacy components are defined generically and can be understood from the specs as the application of the judicial exceptions. For example, par 22: System Process Parameter (legacy component): “Every system process has corresponding input and outputs defined in the system ontology, and the system process parameter block is used to represent such components.” Where the legacy component is just definitions of inputs and outputs. Where the “reuse” as stated is to use existing input and output definitions, which as stated above pertained to the judicial exceptions of creating functional models.
The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic 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 (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore this claim limitation does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. And The MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) states “The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words ‘apply it’”
Because the claim limitation pertains to a generic application of the judicial exception using computing components, and does not outline how the legacy components and sub-system components relate in a way that applies the judicial exceptions, rather than simply being placeholders for the judicial exceptions itself, the claims do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
a second level snapshot of a first level model is created to store the run-time value of entities.
The specifications states par 34: Design of Experiment Model is the first level model which can be used to configure and create design of experiment problem and whenever the execution of design of experiment problem is triggered from the existing system a second level snapshot of the first level model is created to store the run-time values of entities.” This is the usage of a computer to store data. The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic 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 (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore this claim limitation does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Step 2B, does the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
NO. As stated in Step 2A Prong 2, The presence of computer components to perform the abstract idea above, as well limitations which are understood as “apply it” does not take integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Based on the above facts, the office concludes that claim 1 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2:
Step 1: Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? :
YES. The claim recites The sub-system (100) as claimed in claim 1, which is a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1, inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?":
YES. Claim 2 recites: wherein executing the defined design of experiment by the system comprising: initializing an experimental instance of the defined design of experiment fetching and storing an experiment parameter as an experiment parameter instance;
par 37 – 38: “Experiment Parameter Instance (Sub-System Component): This entity captures the execution level details of function parameter configuration such as range bounds, standard deviation, and default/constant value of parameter. “ Again, this is the details for the experiment we already generated. Fetching and storing these details as an “experimental parameter instance” is the same as a researcher deciding which values they would like to run. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.“ Therefore this claim limitation recites an abstract idea.
; initializing the parameter table that stores the defined design of experiment, and a column parameter for every experiment in the parameter table
Par 38 – 40: “Parameter Table (Sub-System Component): This entity captures the design space information of design of experiment which includes the input and output value of each run of experiment, thus the format for data persistence is preferred to be a table. This entity contains pointer to a data storage structure. Each parameter table must have only one design of experiment instance. Further, each parameter table must have one or more than one column parameter.
Column Parameter (Sub-System Component): This entity captures the column information (input/output parameters) of a design space. Each column parameter is linked to an experiment parameter instance to specify which function parameter is referred by this column. Also, each column parameter must have only one parameter table. “
This relates to the design space of the experiment. Creating tables of parameter values with columns is commonly performed by researches when doing experiments to match up different values that are tested. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) states “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” Because this claim pertains to filling in a table for the values of an experiment, which can be done by researchers on a piece of paper, this limitation pertains to an abstract idea.
wherein the parameter table and the one or more column parameters together define a schema to persist a design space of the defined design of experiment
A schema/design space is an arbitrary mental map where the table parameters are stored for the design of experiment. As stated regarding the tables, creating tables of parameter values with columns is commonly performed by researches when doing experiments to match up different values that are tested. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) states “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” Because this claim pertains to filling in a table for the values of an experiment, which can be done by researchers on a piece of paper, this limitation pertains to an abstract idea.
fetching and storing values of a plurality of algorithm parameters of the at least one input generator as an algorithm parameter instance
The algorithm parameter instance is in par 44: “entity captures the value of algorithm parameter.” The algorithm under broadest reasonable interpretation is an equation, and can be fetched and stored within the mind of a scientist and is used to generate inputs. An example can be a uniform distribution. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) states “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” Because this claim pertains to filling in a table for the values of an experiment, which can be done and calculated by researchers on a piece of paper, this limitation pertains to an abstract idea.
fetching and storing values of a plurality of algorithm parameters of the at least one distribution generator, as the algorithm parameter instance;
The algorithm parameter instance is in par 44: “entity captures the value of algorithm parameter.” The algorithm under broadest reasonable interpretation is an equation, and can be fetched and stored within the mind of a scientist and is used to generate noise sets for a distribution. An example can be an algorithm that produces two values within 0.5 standard deviation of each input to result in a total of three values. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) states “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” Because this claim pertains to filling in a table for the values of an experiment, which can be done and calculated by researchers on a piece of paper, this limitation pertains to an abstract idea.
invoking at least one input generator algorithm by feeding an input for the at least one input generator algorithm;
As already stated, this algorithm under broadest reasonable interpretation is a mathematic equation. For example, a uniform distribution of all allowable values for length. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) states “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” Because this claim pertains to filling in a table for the values of an experiment, which can be done and calculated by researchers on a piece of paper, this limitation pertains to an abstract idea.
generating an input set using the at least one input generator algorithm and storing the input set in the parameter table;
As already stated, this algorithm under broadest reasonable interpretation is a mathematic equation. For example, a uniform distribution of all allowable values for length. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) states “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” Because this claim pertains to filling in a table for the values of an experiment, which can be done and calculated by researchers on a piece of paper, this limitation pertains to an abstract idea.
invoking at least one distribution generator algorithm by feeding one or more inputs for the at least one distribution generator algorithm
As already stated, this algorithm under broadest reasonable interpretation is a mathematic equation. An example can be an algorithm that produces two values within 0.5 standard deviation of each input to result in a total of three values. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) states “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” Because this claim pertains to filling in a table for the values of an experiment, which can be done and calculated by researchers on a piece of paper, this limitation pertains to an abstract idea.
generating input sets using the distribution generator algorithm and updating the parameter table using the generated input sets;
As already stated, this algorithm under broadest reasonable interpretation is a mathematic equation. An example can be an algorithm that produces two values within 0.5 standard deviation of each input to result in a total of three values. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) states “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” Because this claim pertains to filling in a table for the values of an experiment, which can be done and calculated by researchers on a piece of paper, this limitation pertains to an abstract idea.
determining whether result for each input set exists in the meta-design space;
As stated, the meta-design space is essentially a table. This is an observation to see if the input already exists in the table. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.“
fetching results for each of the input sets, from the meta-design space, if the result already exists;
As stated, the meta-design space is essentially a table. This is an observation to see if the input already exists in the table and then reading the results off of the table. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.“
fetching results for each of the input sets, by invoking a system process for the input set, if the result does not exist in the meta-design space;
If the result is not in the table, then the experiment is performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the “system process” in this context is the performed experiment, which could be a mathematical function as outlined above. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) states “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.”
and merging the result generated for each of the input sets in the parameter table to form a complete design space of the functional model.
As stated, the meta-design space is essentially a table. This is adding the results gained from different input sets into the design space table or grid. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) states “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” Because this limitation pertains to filling out a table with results, which an individual can reasonably do with a pen and paper, this limitation pertains to an abstract idea.
wherein the selection of at least one input generator and distribution generator for the experiment is based on at least one criterion configured with the sub-system, wherein the criterion is knowledge gained from previous execution or a user input dynamically captured by the sub-system.
Selecting what input and distribution generator to use for an experiment is a choice which can be made by a individual reasonably skilled in the art. This choice can be made by a user through user input. This is the usage of a computer to make a selection, which can practically be performed by a user in their mind. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. “ and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.” Therefore the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO. Claim 2 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, does the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
NO. Claim 2 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Based on the above facts, the office concludes that claim 2 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3 is an effective duplicate of claim 1 with the difference being that it is “A processor implemented method (200) … the method comprising“ which is a method claim. Claim 3 also references “the one or more hardware processors (104) To perform the functions of claim 1. The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic 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 (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore,
Due to the reasons discussed on claim 1 and above, this claim is directed to an abstract idea, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Based on the above facts, the office concludes that claim 3 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4
Claim 4 is an effective duplicate of claim 2 with the only difference being that it depends on claim 3. Due to the reasons discussed on claim 2 and claim 3, this claim is directed to an abstract idea, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Based on the above facts, the office concludes that claim 4 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5
Claim 5 is an effective duplicate of claim 1 with the difference being that it is “A computer program product” which is a product of manufacture. Furthermore claim 5 states comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having a computer readable program embodied therein, wherein the computer readable program, when executed on a computing device, causes the computing device to perform” the functions of claim 1. The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic 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 (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, this claim is directed to an abstract idea, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Based on the above facts, the office concludes that claim 5 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6:
Claim 6 is an effective duplicate of claim 2 with the only difference being that it depends on claim 5. Due to the reasons discussed on claim 2 and claim 5, this claim is directed to an abstract idea, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Based on the above facts, the office concludes that claim 6 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lekivetz_2018 (US 20210326501 A1) “Data Set Generation For Performance Evaluation” abstract: “A computing system receives a request to generate computer-generated data for an experiment. The computer-generated data comprises generated inputs defining setting(s) for a plurality of factors for a design of the experiment. The generated inputs are generated to be representative of a respective design space of different design spaces for the design of the experiment. The system receives first characteristic(s) for specifying generation of the computer-generated data associated with a first design space. The system receives second characteristic(s) for specifying generation of the computer-generated data associated with a second design space. The system, responsive to the request, generates a design suite that comprises the computer-generated data that represents, in a first set of design cases of the design suite, settings constrained by the first design space, and represents, in a second set of design cases of the design suite, settings constrained by the second design space.”
Morgan_2018 (US 20210124858 A1) “Transformation And Evaluation Of Disallowed Combinations In Designed Experiments” abstract: “a computing system receives a request for a computer-generated design of an experiment. A design space is defined by candidate inputs for each factor (Examiner note: ie: parameter) of the experiment. The system receives a disallowed combination indication indicating a user-defined disallowed combination for the design space. The disallowed combination constrains a first set of values from a first set of candidate inputs from being assigned to the first factor if the second factor is assigned one of a second set of values from a second set of candidate inputs. The system determines additional constraint(s) on computer generation of the design. The system evaluates if a user-defined model can be generated according to the disallowed combination and the constraint(s). The system generates a computer suggested modification of the user-defined model such that the design can be generated according to the computer suggested modification.”
Chang_2014 (US 20140107925 A1) “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TRACKING A SET OF EXPERIMENTS”
Par 5-6: “The present solution provides a new tool for tracking a set of experiments. The tool allows a developer to identify a plurality of aspects of an experiment, including, e.g., algorithms, parameters, and data sets, execute the experiments to produce outcomes, and identify, store, and visualize differences between each experiment. In some embodiments, the tool automatically determines the data set, the parameters, and the algorithms used in each run of the experiment. The tool may record this information and the outcome of the experiment in a database. Using this information, the tool may highlight the differences between data sets, parameters, algorithms, and outcomes between any two experiments. This information may be used to determine an optimal combination of parameters, data sets, and algorithms.
Averill_2007 (US 20070244678 A1) “Design Optimization System And Method”
Par 9: “In accordance with the present invention, a design optimization system includes an initial design evaluation module evaluating a system model using initial subsystem designs to extract interactions between subsystem models and/or between the system and the subsystem models. An updating module updates the interactions for the subsystem models, and an optimization module performs subsystem design optimization using the subsystem model and most recently updated interactions, thereby obtaining an updated subsystem design.” Examiner note: Where the reference shows interactions between a system and subsystem. m
Cooney_2006 (US 20060259158 A1) “System For Automating Scientific And Engineering Experimentation” – abstract “the automation can be adapted to any targeted external software application, device or a devices' controlling software program.” (Examiner note: ie: host device or legacy system)
Par 4: “As is seen from the above, the research, development, and engineering experimentation process involves a series of activities that are currently conducted in separate "technology islands" that require manual data exchanges among the tools that are used for each activity. However, until now, no overarching automation technology exists that brings together all the individual activities under a single integrated-technology platform that is adapted to multiple devices and data systems.”
Par 132: “In addition, in a preferred embodiment, the AE system includes a variety of plug-in application modules--each of which generates specific types of statistically-based experiment designs as directed by experiment type XMLs and device XMLs, and executes the associated analysis, graphing, optimization, and reporting of the experiment's results, as directed by analysis XMLs and report XMLs. The user could configure and direct the application modules, for example, in a preferred embodiment, by constructing device XMLs, experiment XMLs, analysis XMLs, and report XMLs, and operate the application module tools through a series of rule-based wizards.”
Par 135: “The AE system in a preferred embodiment is an electronic signature based system for enabling software operations and subroutines and imposing management review and approve loops on user work within the AE system.”
Par 142: “The generalized exchange module (GEM) is a proprietary software-based technology that enables a software program to dynamically configure its user interface and directly control a device and/or directly address the device's ICP--whether or not the device's target programmatic interface is published in an SDK. The level of control that can be provided by GEM is only limited by the level of device addressability provided by the device's programmatic interface. GEM accomplishes this through the following program elements:” … All controllable elements of a device (modules and sub-modules). … A design of experiment (DOE) exporter that writes the control point settings of the statistical experiment design or user constructed experiment to the device. (Examiner note: ie: a subsystem which attaches to a host system for DOE operations)
Kulnari_2003 (US 20030055921 A1) “Method and Apparatus For Reengineering Legacy Systems For Seamless Interaction With Distributed Component Systems”
Par 23: A goal of the present invention is to provide a comprehensive approach for integrating legacy systems to distributed component systems as opposed to complete system rewrites or migrations.
Par 45: In this example, a legacy system 1 (308) and a legacy system 2 (309) have redundant tables T1 and T2 between them such that system 1 (308) owns T1 and system 2 (309) owns T2. Updates of interest to T1 in system 1 need to be propagated to T1 in system 2 and updates of interest to T2 in system 2 need to be propagated to T2 in system 1. A legacy system 1 data model (DM) 306 represents the entire data model for legacy system 1 (308). A Block given the element number 304 represents legacy system 1 (LS1) data reconciliation service (DRS) out. LS1_DRS_out (304) is a user-initiated event for propagating updates of interest to T 1 in system 1 out to UNL. A block labeled LS2_DRS_in (305) is a user-initiated event for propagating the T1 update from UNL into T1 in system 2. It is noted herein that output of block 304 is input to block 305. The redundancy reconciliation is facilitated by an in-memory ER model 1 (LERM 1) 302 and an in-memory LERM 2 (303). The direction of update is illustrated herein by directional arrows from the data model (LDM 1) to the ER model (LERM 1) representing LS1_DRS_out and from the ER model (LERM 2) to the data model (LDM 2) representing LS2_DRS_in. The direction of update for T2 (owned by system 2) would be in reverse order wherein block 305 would read LS2_DRS_out and block 304 would read LSI_DRS_in.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMAD HUSSAM SHALABY whose telephone number is (571)272-7414. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 5pm.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 5712723652. 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.
/A.H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights