DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response the communications filed on 05/13/2026 in which claims 1-3, 5-8 and 13-19 are amended, and claims 1-20 are pending.
--
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
-
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more
Step 1: Claims 1-14 recite a method. Claim 15 recite a de-vice comprising processors and a non-transitory medium. Claims 16-20 recites an article of manufacture including a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Therefore, claims 1-14 are directed to a process, claim 15 is directed to a machine, and claims 16-20 are directed to a manufacture.
With respect to claims 1, 15 and 16:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
assigning… each input sample of the input data to a respective slice of a plurality of slices (mental process – evaluation or judgement, assign input sample to a slice)
determining… a respective output threshold value for each slice of the plurality of slices, wherein determining a particular output threshold value for a particular slice of the plurality of slices comprises (mental process – evaluation or judgement, determine a threshold value for each slice or for a particular slice)
determining… at least two putative values of the particular output threshold value that, when applied to the plurality of model outputs corresponding to the particular slice, satisfy the at least one constraint for the particular slice (mental process – evaluation or judgement, determine two putative values, when applying model outputs, that satisfy the constraint for the slice)
selecting… from the at least two putative values, the particular output threshold value for the particular slice by determining which of the at least two putative values, when applied to the plurality of model outputs corresponding to the particular slice, results in a maximal value of the at least one metric for the particular slice, wherein the at least one metric for the particular slice is associated with a performance quality of the trained machine learning model; and (mental process – evaluation or judgement, select, from the two putative values, the particular threshold value, by determining which of the two putative values, results in a maximal value of the metric)
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
(claim 1) by a computing system comprising one or more processors… by the computing system… by the computing system… by the computing system… by the computing system… by the computing system… by the computing system… (claim 15) a controller comprising one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored therein instructions executable by the controller device to cause the one or more processors to perform controller operations comprising (claim 16) including a non-transitory computer-readable medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform operations comprising (mere instructions to apply an exception, (2) Whether the claim invokes computers - MPEP 2106.05(f); generic computer components)
obtaining… input data, wherein the input data includes a plurality of input samples (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting)
for each slice of the plurality of slices, obtaining… a respective at least one constraint and a respective at least one metric (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting)
obtaining… a trained machine learning model (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting)
processing, by the trained machine learning model, each input sample of the input data that corresponds to the particular slice to generate a plurality of model outputs corresponding to the particular slice (mere instructions to apply an exception – MPEP 2106.05(f), (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception; using the trained model to process input sample)
providing the respective output threshold value determined for each slice of the plurality of slices to the trained machine learning model for processing, by the trained machine learning model, subsequent input samples associated with the plurality of slices. (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting)
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
(claim 1) by a computing system comprising one or more processors… by the computing system… by the computing system… by the computing system… by the computing system… by the computing system… by the computing system… (claim 15) a controller comprising one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored therein instructions executable by the controller device to cause the one or more processors to perform controller operations comprising (claim 16) including a non-transitory computer-readable medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform operations comprising (mere instructions to apply an exception, (2) Whether the claim invokes computers - MPEP 2106.05(f); generic computer components)
obtaining… input data, wherein the input data includes a plurality of input samples (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting, and WURC: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 - MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
for each slice of the plurality of slices, obtaining… a respective at least one constraint and a respective at least one metric (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting, and WURC: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 - MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
obtaining… a trained machine learning model (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting, and WURC: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 - MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
processing, by the trained machine learning model, each input sample of the input data that corresponds to the particular slice to generate a plurality of model outputs corresponding to the particular slice (mere instructions to apply an exception – MPEP 2106.05(f), (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception; using the trained model to process input sample)
providing the respective output threshold value determined for each slice of the plurality of slices to the trained machine learning model for processing, by the trained machine learning model, subsequent input samples associated with the plurality of slices. (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting, and WURC: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 - MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values))
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claims 2 and 17:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
determining that the first subsequent input sample corresponds to the particular slice; and (mental process – evaluation or judgement, determine that the input sample corresponds to the particular slice)
responsive to determining that the first subsequent input sample corresponds to the particular slice, applying the particular output threshold value to the intermediate model output to determine, for the first subsequent input sample, a final output indicating a classification of the first subsequent input sample. (mental process – evaluation or judgement, apply the threshold value to the model output to determine a final output)
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
obtaining a first subsequent input sample (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting)
processing, by the trained machine learning model, the first subsequent input sample to generate an intermediate model output; (mere instructions to apply an exception – MPEP 2106.05(f), (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception; using the trained model to process the input sample)
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
obtaining a first subsequent input sample (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting, and WURC: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 - MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
processing, by the trained machine learning model, the first subsequent input sample to generate an intermediate model output; (mere instructions to apply an exception – MPEP 2106.05(f), (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception; using the trained model to process the input sample)
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claims 3 and 18:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein the method further comprises: based on the classification, accepting the input from the user as authentic (mental process – evaluation or judgement, evaluate if the input is authentic based on the classification)
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
wherein the input sample represents an input from a user, and (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting; claim 1 recites “obtaining input data, wherein the input data includes a plurality of input samples” which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Specifying the input sample representing an input from a user does not cause the limitation to integrate the exception into a practical application.)
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the input sample represents an input from a user, and (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting, and WURC: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 - MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); claim 1 recites “obtaining input data, wherein the input data includes a plurality of input samples” which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Specifying the input sample representing an input from a user does not cause the limitation to be significantly more than the judicial exception.)
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 4:
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
wherein the input from the user represents an update to a map, and (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting; claim 3 recites “… an input from the user” which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Specifying the input representing an update to a map does not cause the limitation to integrate the exception into a practical application.)
wherein accepting the input from the user as authentic comprises updating a map database based on the update to the map (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting)
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the input from the user represents an update to a map, and (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting, and WURC: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 - MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); claim 3 recites “… an input from the user” which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Specifying the input representing an update to a map does not cause the limitation to be significantly more than the judicial exception.)
wherein accepting the input from the user as authentic comprises updating a map database based on the update to the map (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting, and WURC: storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. - MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv))
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 5:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein determining… the at least two putative values of the particular output threshold value that, when applied to the plurality of model outputs corresponding to the particular slice, satisfy the at least one constraint for the particular slice comprises: (mental process – evaluation or judgement, determine two values that satisfy the constraint)
determining whether each possible threshold value of a discrete set of possible values of the particular output threshold value, when applied to the plurality of model outputs corresponding to the particular slice, satisfies the at least one constraint for the particular slice, wherein the discrete set of possible values of the particular output threshold value span a range of values (mental process – evaluation or judgement, determine whether each possible value satisfies the constraint)
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
by the computing system (mere instructions to apply an exception, (2) Whether the claim invokes computers - MPEP 2106.05(f); generic computer components)
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
by the computing system (mere instructions to apply an exception, (2) Whether the claim invokes computers - MPEP 2106.05(f); generic computer components)
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 6:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein selecting, from the at least two putative values, the particular output threshold value for the particular slice comprises: (mental process – evaluation or judgement, select, from the two values, the particular threshold value)
determining that at least two candidate values of the at least two putative values, when applied to the plurality of model outputs corresponding to the particular slice, result in the same maximal value of the at least one metric for the particular slice (mental process – evaluation or judgement, determine that two values result in the same maximal value of the metric)
selecting… from the at least two candidate values, the particular output threshold value for the particular slice by determining which of the at least two candidate values, when applied to the plurality of model outputs corresponding to the particular slice, results in a maximal value of the at least one secondary metric for the particular slice (mental process – evaluation or judgement, select, from the two values, the particular threshold value that results in a maximal value)
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
obtaining at least one secondary metric for the particular slice (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting)
by the computing system (mere instructions to apply an exception, (2) Whether the claim invokes computers - MPEP 2106.05(f); generic computer components)
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
obtaining at least one secondary metric for the particular slice (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting, and WURC: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 - MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
by the computing system (mere instructions to apply an exception, (2) Whether the claim invokes computers - MPEP 2106.05(f); generic computer components)
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 7:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein determining… which of the at least two putative values, when applied to the plurality of model outputs corresponding to the particular slice, results in a maximal value of the at least one metric for the particular slice comprises (mental process – evaluation or judgement, determine which of the two values results in a maximal value)
applying respective weights to the model outputs corresponding to the particular slice when computing values of the at least one metric for the at least two putative values (mental process – evaluation or judgement, apply respective weights to the model outputs corresponding the slice)
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
by the computing system (mere instructions to apply an exception, (2) Whether the claim invokes computers - MPEP 2106.05(f); generic computer components)
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
by the computing system (mere instructions to apply an exception, (2) Whether the claim invokes computers - MPEP 2106.05(f); generic computer components)
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claims 8 and 19:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
further comprising: for each slice of the plurality of slices, determining a respective output calibration, and (mental process – evaluation or judgement, determine an output calibration for each slice)
applying the plurality of raw model outputs to a particular output calibration determined for the particular slice to generate the plurality of model outputs corresponding to the particular slice (mental process – evaluation or judgement, apply raw model outputs to an output calibration)
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
wherein processing, by the trained machine learning model, each input sample of the input data that corresponds to the particular slice to generate a plurality of model outputs corresponding to the particular slice comprises (mere instructions to apply an exception – MPEP 2106.05(f), (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception; using the trained model to process each input sample, to generate model outputs)
processing, by the trained machine learning model, the each input sample of the input data that corresponds to the particular slice to generate a plurality of raw model outputs (mere instructions to apply an exception – MPEP 2106.05(f), (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception; using the trained model to process the input sample, to generate raw model outputs)
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein processing, by the trained machine learning model, each input sample of the input data that corresponds to the particular slice to generate a plurality of model outputs corresponding to the particular slice comprises (mere instructions to apply an exception – MPEP 2106.05(f), (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception; using the trained model to process each input sample, to generate model outputs)
processing, by the trained machine learning model, the each input sample of the input data that corresponds to the particular slice to generate a plurality of raw model outputs (mere instructions to apply an exception – MPEP 2106.05(f), (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception; using the trained model to process the input sample, to generate raw model outputs)
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 9:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein determining the particular output calibration for the particular slice comprises determining a Platt calibration for the plurality of raw model outputs (mental process – evaluation or judgement, determine a Platt calibration for raw model outputs)
With respect to claims 10 and 20:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein determining the particular output calibration for the particular slice comprises (mental process – evaluation or judgement, determine the output calibration)
using each raw model output to update a corresponding bucket of a plurality of buckets, wherein each bucket of the plurality of buckets represents a respective non-overlapping range of possible model output values (mental process – evaluation or judgement, use each raw model output to update a corresponding bucket of a plurality of buckets )
determining the particular output calibration for the particular slice based on the plurality of buckets (mental process – evaluation or judgement, determine the particular output calibration based on the buckets)
With respect to claim 11:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein each bucket of the plurality of buckets represents: (i) a respective count of raw model outputs assigned to the bucket and corresponding to a first class of inputs, (ii) a respective count of raw model outputs assigned to the bucket and corresponding to a second class of inputs, (iii) a respective sum of weights of raw model outputs assigned to the bucket and corresponding to a first class of inputs, and (iv) a respective sum of weights of raw model outputs assigned to the bucket and corresponding to a second class of inputs. (mental process – evaluation or judgement, claim 10 recites “updating a corresponding bucket,” which is an abstract idea. Incorporating more details of the buckets does not change the scope of the claim)
With respect to claim 12:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
updating the particular output threshold value for the particular slice based on the additional input data (mental process – evaluation or judgement, update the particular threshold value based on the additional input data)
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
obtaining additional input data corresponding to the particular slice (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting)
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
obtaining additional input data corresponding to the particular slice (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting, and WURC: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 - MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 13:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
determining an updated output threshold value for the particular slice by (mental process – evaluation or judgement, determine an updated threshold value)
determining… at least two updated putative values of the updated output threshold value that, when applied to the plurality of updated model outputs corresponding to the particular slice, satisfy the at least one constraint for the particular slice (mental process – evaluation or judgement, determine two updated putative values satisfying the constraint)
selecting… from the at least two updated putative values, the updated output threshold value for the particular slice by determining which of the at least updated two putative values, when applied to the plurality of updated model outputs corresponding to the particular slice, results in a maximal value of the at least one metric for the particular slice. (mental process – evaluation or judgement, select the updated output threshold value resulting in a maximal value of the metric)
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
obtaining an updated machine learning model (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting)
processing, by the updated machine learning model, each input sample of the input data that corresponds to the particular slice to generate a plurality of updated model outputs corresponding to the particular slice (mere instructions to apply an exception – MPEP 2106.05(f), (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception; using the updated model to process the input sample)
by the computing system… by the computing system… (mere instructions to apply an exception, (2) Whether the claim invokes computers - MPEP 2106.05(f); generic computer components)
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
obtaining an updated machine learning model (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting, and WURC: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 - MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
processing, by the updated machine learning model, each input sample of the input data that corresponds to the particular slice to generate a plurality of updated model outputs corresponding to the particular slice (mere instructions to apply an exception – MPEP 2106.05(f), (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception; using the updated model to process the input sample)
by the computing system… by the computing system… (mere instructions to apply an exception, (2) Whether the claim invokes computers - MPEP 2106.05(f); generic computer components)
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 14:
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
wherein obtaining the trained machine learning model comprises training the machine learning model using at least one input sample of the input data that corresponds to each slice of the plurality of slices (mere instructions to apply an exception – MPEP 2106.05(f), (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception; training the model)
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein obtaining the trained machine learning model comprises training the machine learning model using at least one input sample of the input data that corresponds to each slice of the plurality of slices (mere instructions to apply an exception – MPEP 2106.05(f), (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception; training the model)
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments with respect to the claim objections and 112 Rejection have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the objections and 112 Rejection. The objections and 112 Rejection have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicant argues: (p. 12-13) claim 1 is directed to improving the technology and performance of the machine learning model by determining and selecting a particular output threshold value for each slice of the plurality of slices based on a metric that "is associated with a performance quality of the trained machine learning model."… Paragraph [0020] …slice-specific thresholding… Paragraph [0026]… to use slice-specific thresholds (and optionally slice-specific calibration)…" Paragraph [0027] of the published application also discloses a "slice-specific threshold…"
Examiner answers: The application is directed to the field of conformal prediction, in which an already trained, i.e. already fitted, model used with a separate calibration data to provide a statistically valid prediction interval or sets.
The invention also aligns with conformal prediction methods. Specifically, the claim recites obtaining and using “a trained machine learning model,” meaning that the trained model itself is not modified or improved. Instead, the improvement of the invention lies in introducing the “slice-specific threshold” to the conformal prediction, where the threshold can be adjusted or selected for the specific data set, i.e. “selecting… from the at least two putative values, the particular output threshold value for the particular slice” as claimed. However, this selecting step is an abstract idea, which is not sufficient to provide a technological improvement. (MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.”)
Further, the limitation reciting providing this ‘selected’ respective threshold for each slice, for further processing more input samples by the trained model can be interpreted in one of two ways: (1) providing the new threshold as in ‘input’ to the model or (2) providing the ‘adjusted/selected’ threshold for further more processing steps, which is insignificant extra-solution activity and WURC: (1) receiving or transmitting data over a network or (2) performing repetitive calculations or adjustments (on the threshold), respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PNG
media_image1.png
852
930
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gendler ("Adversarially robust conformal prediction" 20220128) and Gueret (US 20220138632 A1, filed on 2020-10-29) are closest prior arts to claim 1.
Gendler teaches selecting, from multiple values, a ratio of σ/δ = 2 (i.e. δ/σ = 1/2 in the Figure S7) will result in good marginal coverage (e.g. > 90) and good set size (smaller and more informative sets). However, selecting σ/δ = 2 (i.e. δ/σ = 1/2 in the Figure S7) does not result in a maximal value, because the value σ/δ = 1/2 (i.e. δ/σ = 2 in the Figure S7) - not σ/δ = 2 (i.e. δ/σ = 1/2 in the Figure S7) results in a maximal value, a maximal marginal coverage.
(Gendler's method (or any standard conformal prediction) is aimed at achieving a nominal coverage level (e.g. > 90%), not a maximal coverage (e.g. 100%). Gendler's method is further aimed at choosing the best setting of Mδ with Q_1-α (hyperparameters with conformal threshold) that will achieve both nominal coverage and informative prediction sets.)
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SU-TING CHUANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5 PT.
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, Usmaan Saeed can be reached at (571) 272-4046. 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.
/S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2146
/USMAAN SAEED/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2146
Prosecution Insights