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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. AU 2020901209, filed on 04/16/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/13/2022 and 06/27/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 3, 5-6, 8-14, 16-22, 26, 28-32, 35, and 61-62 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.
Claims 3, 35, and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are detailing the reasons why two sampling procedures are needed for “interaction effects” and “hybrid variables” when the Specification associates them as being one in the same. See for example, page one, lines 21-27 which states that “[a] useful solution to this issue is to use interaction effects. For example, hybrid variables...[which] can force interactivity between variables....” Because the claims detail two sampling procedures, one for “interaction effects” and another for “hybrid variables” the claims are indefinite in light of the Specification which equates them as being the same.
Claims 9-10 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.
The term “multiplicity of the total number of variables” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “multiplicity of the total number of variables” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. And makes determining the number of randomly selected hybrid variables for each sampled interaction effect structure indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 20-22, 26 and 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 20-22 and 30 are dependent on claim 1, which has been canceled. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 3, 5-6, 8-14, 16-22, 26, 28-32, 35, and 61-62 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 3 partly recites the following limitations:
sampling at least one interaction effect structure of at least one multivariable dataset; sampling at least one hybrid variable for each sampled interaction effect structure; calculating a lift value for each sampled hybrid variable, and comparing the lift value to a threshold lift criteria; labelling each sampled hybrid variable based on determining that the lift value of the sample hybrid variable exceeds the threshold lift criteria...to determine a value corresponding to the likelihood of each hybrid variable having a lift which exceeds the threshold lift criteria; and retaining only hybrid variables with a likelihood value that exceeds a decision criteria
These limitations, as drafted, are a process under Step 1 that under its broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations and falls under the mathematical concepts grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong One.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two because the claim recites the following additional elements:
training a machine learning model to predict the likelihood of a hybrid variable having a lift which exceeds the threshold lift criteria, the training being performed using the labelled sampled hybrid variables;
applying the trained machine learning model to each hybrid variable within each sampled interaction effect structure
The additional claim elements of training a machine learning model to predict the likelihood of a hybrid variable having a lift which exceeds the threshold lift criteria, the training being performed using the labelled sampled hybrid variables; applying the trained machine learning model to each hybrid variable within each sampled interaction effect structure recites only the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite the details of how the solution is a accomplished since no description has been given as the type of machine learning model used to predict the likelihood of a hybrid variable and no description has been given as to how the machine learning model has been trained to later be applied to each hybrid variable.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B because as discussed above, training a machine learning model to predict the likelihood of a hybrid variable having a lift which exceeds the threshold lift criteria, the training being performed using the labelled sampled hybrid variables; applying the trained machine learning model to each hybrid variable within each sampled interaction effect structure only recites the idea of a solution and fails to recite the details of how the solution is accomplished and amounts to no more than mere recitations of “apply it.”
Accordingly, claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 partly recites the following limitations:
determining whether the number of retained hybrid variables exceeds a predetermined threshold; and if the number of the retained hybrid variables does not exceed the predetermined threshold, sampling at least one further interaction effect structure and repeating the method.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process under Step 1 that under its broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations and/or using observations, evaluations, judgements and opinion and falls under the either the mathematical concepts and/or mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong One.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. And the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 partly recites the following limitations:
calculating a discriminatory strength statistic for each of the retained hybrid variables, and discarding retained hybrid variables that do not meet a discriminatory strength statistic decision criteria.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process under Step 1 that under its broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations and/or using observations, evaluations, judgements and opinion and falls under the either the mathematical concepts and/or mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong One.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. And the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 partly recites the following limitations:
sorting the retained hybrid variables based on at least one of the discriminatory strength statistic and the predicted lift likelihood value.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process under Step 1 that under its broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations and/or using observations, evaluations, judgements and opinion and falls under the either the mathematical concepts and/or mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong One.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. And the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 partly recites the following limitations:
sampling so that the number of randomly selected hybrid variables for each sampled interaction effect structure is equal to a multiplicity of the total number of variables contained within the multi variable dataset.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process under Step 1 that under its broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations and/or using observations, evaluations, judgements and opinion and falls under the either the mathematical concepts and/or mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong One.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. And the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 partly recites the following limitations:
sampling so that the number of randomly selected hybrid variables for each sampled interaction effect structure is at least ten times the total number of variables contained within the multivariable dataset.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process under Step 1 that under its broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations and/or using observations, evaluations, judgements and opinion and falls under the either the mathematical concepts and/or mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong One.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. And the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 partly recites the following limitations:
wherein the multivariable dataset comprises dependent variables and independent variables.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process under Step 1 that under its broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations and/or using observations, evaluations, judgements and opinion and falls under the either the mathematical concepts and/or mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong One.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. And the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 partly recites the following limitations:
wherein the dependent variables are labelled variables.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process under Step 1 that under its broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations and/or using observations, evaluations, judgements and opinion and falls under the either the mathematical concepts and/or mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong One.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. And the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 partly recites the following limitations:
partitioning the multivariable dataset based on the labelled dependent variables to create at least two partitioned datasets
These limitations, as drafted, are a process under Step 1 that under its broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations and/or using observations, evaluations, judgements and opinion and falls under the either the mathematical concepts and/or mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong One.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. And the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 13 is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 partly recites the following limitations:
calculating at least one discriminatory strength statistic for each variable in the at least two partitioned datasets, and calculating at least one discriminatory strength statistic for each sampled hybrid variable.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process under Step 1 that under its broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations and/or using observations, evaluations, judgements and opinion and falls under the either the mathematical concepts and/or mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong One.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. And the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 14 is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 partly recites the following limitations:
selecting one or more variables within each hybrid variable, wherein the selected one or more variables comprises a variable with highest discriminatory strength within the hybrid variable.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process under Step 1 that under its broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations and/or using observations, evaluations, judgements and opinion and falls under the either the mathematical concepts and/or mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong One.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. And the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 16 is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 partly recites the following limitations:
calculating moment statistics for each variable, calculating moment statistics for each hybrid variable, and sourcing moment statistics calculated for the selected one or more variables.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process under Step 1 that under its broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations and/or using observations, evaluations, judgements and opinion and falls under the either the mathematical concepts and/or mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong One.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. And the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 17 is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 partly recites the following limitations:
wherein calculated moment statics for each variable are used for algebraically calculating moment statistics for each hybrid variable.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process under Step 1 that under its broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations and/or using observations, evaluations, judgements and opinion and falls under the either the mathematical concepts and/or mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong One.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. And the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 18 is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 partly recites the following limitations:
wherein the calculated moment statistics for each variable are used as a source for sourcing moment statistics of the selected one or more variables for each hybrid variable.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process under Step 1 that under its broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations and/or using observations, evaluations, judgements and opinion and falls under the either the mathematical concepts and/or mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong One.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. And the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 19 is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 partly recites the following limitations:
calculating or sourcing respectively at least the first two moments.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process under Step 1 that under its broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations and/or using observations, evaluations, judgements and opinion and falls under the either the mathematical concepts and/or mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong One.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. And the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 20 is not patent eligible.
Claim 21 partly recites the following limitations:
creating a variable moments dataset....
These limitations, as drafted, are a process under Step 1 that under its broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations and falls under the mathematical concepts grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong One.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two because the claim recites the following additional elements:
and storing the moment statistics of each variable within the variable moments dataset
The additional claim elements of and storing the moment statistics of each variable within the variable moments dataset amount to mere insignificant extra-solution activity in which the limitations amount to general data gathering, manipulation and/or storing of data.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B because as discussed above, the additional claim elements of and storing the moment statistics of each variable within the variable moments dataset are well-understood, routine, conventional activity that court decisions, such as Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd, Versata Dev. Group, Inc, and OIP Techs cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) have indicated that the mere electronic record keeping and storing/retrieving of information in memory are well- understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, claim 21 is not patent eligible.
Claim 22 partly recites the following limitations:
creating a moments dataset....
These limitations, as drafted, are a process under Step 1 that under its broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations and falls under the mathematical concepts grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong One.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two because the claim recites the following additional elements:
and storing the moment statistics of each hybrid variable alongside the moment statistics of the selected one or more variables for the corresponding hybrid variables
The additional claim elements of and storing the moment statistics of each hybrid variable alongside the moment statistics of the selected one or more variables for the corresponding hybrid variables amount to mere insignificant extra-solution activity in which the limitations amount to general data gathering, manipulation and/or storing of data.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B because as discussed above, the additional claim elements of and storing the moment statistics of each hybrid variable alongside the moment statistics of the selected one or more variables for the corresponding hybrid variables are well-understood, routine, conventional activity that court decisions, such as Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd, Versata Dev. Group, Inc, and OIP Techs cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) have indicated that the mere electronic record keeping and storing/retrieving of information in memory are well- understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, claim 22 is not patent eligible.
Claim 26 partly recites the following limitations:
calculating a discriminatory measure statistic for each sampled hybrid variable.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process under Step 1 that under its broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations and/or using observations, evaluations, judgements and opinion and falls under the either the mathematical concepts and/or mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong One.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. And the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 26 is not patent eligible.
Claim 28 partly recites the following limitations:
dividing the discriminatory measure statistic of the sampled hybrid variable by the discriminatory strength statistic of the variable having the highest discriminatory strength within the hybrid variable.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process under Step 1 that under its broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations and/or using observations, evaluations, judgements and opinion and falls under the either the mathematical concepts and/or mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong One.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. And the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 28 is not patent eligible.
Claim 29 partly recites the following limitations:
creating a training dataset by combining the labelled sampled hybrid variables with the moments dataset by selecting only matching hybrid variables across the datasets.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process under Step 1 that under its broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations and/or using observations, evaluations, judgements and opinion and falls under the either the mathematical concepts and/or mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong One.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. And the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 29 is not patent eligible.
Claim 30 partly recites the following limitations:
at least one mathematical operator and at least two operands.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process under Step 1 that under its broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations and/or using observations, evaluations, judgements and opinion and falls under the either the mathematical concepts and/or mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong One.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. And the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 30 is not patent eligible.
Claim 31 partly recites the following limitations:
at least one operator and at least two operands, the at least two operands of the hybrid variables each comprising a variable from the multivariable dataset.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process under Step 1 that under its broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations and/or using observations, evaluations, judgements and opinion and falls under the either the mathematical concepts and/or mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong One.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. And the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 31 is not patent eligible.
Claim 32 partly recites the following limitations:
an arithmetic operator or mathematical function.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process under Step 1 that under its broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations and/or using observations, evaluations, judgements and opinion and falls under the either the mathematical concepts and/or mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong One.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. And the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B because there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 32 is not patent eligible.
Claim 35 partly recites the following limitations:
Because claim 35 is directed to a system which is a machine the claimed invention is directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 and under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B the additional claim elements of a processor; memory storing program code that is accessible and executable by the processor, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since these additional claim elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. using a generic processor and generic memory) and for all other claim elements of claim 35 they are rejected using the same PEG analysis of claim 3 since they are analogous claims.
Accordingly, claim 35 is not patent eligible.
Claim 61 partly recites the following limitations:
using at least one of the retained hybrid variables....
These limitations, as drafted, are a process under Step 1 that under its broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations and falls under the mathematical concepts grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong One.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two because the claim recites the following additional elements:
for generating a second machine learning model
The additional claim elements of for generating a second machine learning model
recites only the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite the details of how the solution is accomplished since no description has been given as the type of machine learning model used and no description has been given as to how the machine learning model is generated.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B because as discussed above, for generating a second machine learning model only recites the idea of a solution and fails to recite the details of how the solution is accomplished and amounts to no more than mere recitations of “apply it.”
Accordingly, claim 61 is not patent eligible.
Claim 62 partly recites the following limitations:
Because claim 62 is directed to a computer readable medium storing non-transitory instructions which is a manufacture the claimed invention is directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 and under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B the additional claim elements of storing non-transitory instructions which, when executed by a processor are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since these additional claim elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. using a generic processor and generic memory) and for all other claim elements of claim 62 they are rejected using the same PEG analysis of claim 3 since they are analogous claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 5-6, 8-14, 16-22, 26, 28-32, 35, and 61-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinto et al., US 7,933,762 B2(“Pinto”) in view of Marcondes, Diego et al., "Feature Selection based on the Local Lift Dependence Scale." Entropy 20.2 (2018)(“Diego”)
Regarding claim 3, Pinto teaches a method for generating a machine learning model, the method comprising:
sampling at least one interaction effect structure of at least one multivariable dataset(Pinto, col. 11, lines 14-67 & col. 12. lines 1-30, see also fig. 10, “In the third stage 174, the subspace,
X
Q
is expanded by including all significant cross-products,
x
k
j
*
x
q
P
where
x
k
j
and
x
q
p
are in
X
Q
[sampling at least one interaction effect structure of at least one multivariable dataset]....”);
sampling at least one hybrid variable for each sampled interaction effect structure(Pinto, col. 12, lines 9-19, see also fig. 10, “In the fifth stage 182, the augmented subspace,
X
s
#
#
#
, is further augmented with all the cross-products,
x
k
j
*
z
s
r
, where
x
k
j
are from,
X
s
#
#
#
and
z
s
r
of from
X
N
-
X
M
[sampling at least one hybrid variable for each sampled interaction effect structure]....”);
[calculating a lift value] for each sampled hybrid variable, [and comparing the lift value to a threshold lift criteria]( Pinto, col. 12, lines 9-19, see also fig. 10, “In the fifth stage 182, the augmented subspace,
X
s
#
#
#
, is further augmented with all the cross-products,
x
k
j
*
z
s
r
, where
x
k
j
are from,
X
s
#
#
#
and
z
s
r
of from
X
N
-
X
M
[for each sampled hybrid variable,]....”);1
labelling each sampled hybrid variable [based on determining that the lift value] of the sample hybrid variable [exceeds the threshold lift criteria]( Pinto, col. 12, lines 9-19, see also fig. 10, “In the fifth stage 182, the augmented subspace,
X
s
#
#
#
, is further augmented with all the cross-products,
x
k
j
*
z
s
r
, where