Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 03/02/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 18, 19 and 20 are independent claims. This Office Action is made Final.
Claim Objections
2. Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 “the online data tab” should be changed “the online data table”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1, 18, 19 and 20 are corresponding to one of four statutory categories including method, system, and method respectively under step 1. The claims 1, 18, 19 and 20 similarly recite “a method for assisting launch of a machine learning model, executable by at least one computing device, the method comprising: acquiring a model file from offline training of the machine learning model; determining a training data table used in a model training process by analyzing the model file; creating in an online database an online data table having consistent table information with the training data table; and importing at least a part of offline data into the online data table, deploying a pre-launch prediction service for realizing a prediction function of the machine learning model; and performing an online prediction service using data to be analyzed in a case where the pre- launch prediction service is launched online, wherein the data to be analyzed is in the online data table”.
The limitation of the claims 1, 18, 19 and 20 of “determining a training data table used in a model training process by analyzing the model file;” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine a training data table used in a model training process by analyzing the model file with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 18, 19 and 20 of “creating in an online database an online data table having consistent table information with the training data table;” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “creating (designing)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may create an online data table having consistent table information with the training data table with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 18, 19 and 20 of “importing at least a part of offline data into the online data table” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “importing (writing or adding)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may import at least a part of offline data into the online data table with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 18, 19 and 20 of “performing an online prediction service using data to be analyzed in a case where the pre-launch prediction service is launched online, wherein the data to be analyzed is in the online data table” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “predicting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may performing a prediction service using data to be analyzed in a case, wherein the data to be analyzed is in the online data table with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 18, 19 and 20 recite additional elements such as “acquiring a model file from offline training of the machine learning model”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 18, 19 and 20 recite additional elements such as “deploying a pre-launch prediction service for realizing a prediction function of the machine learning model”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 2 recites additional elements such as “obtaining model training process information by analyzing the model file”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
The limitation of the claim 2 of “determining an input table corresponding to a feature processing step as the training data table used in the model training process, according to the model training process information” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine an input table corresponding to a feature processing step as the training data table used in the model training process, according to the model training process information with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 3 recites additional elements such as “at least one of a processing node in the model training process, an input table corresponding to the processing node, and an output table corresponding to the processing node”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 4 recites additional elements such as “the feature processing step comprises a field name and a feature processing manner for the field name”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 4 recites additional elements such as “storing, according to the field name involved in the feature processing step, data of the online data table in the online database with the field name as a key”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data storing under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
The limitation of the claim 5 of “determining a data range for a feature processing step by analyzing the model file;” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine a data range for a feature processing step by analyzing the model file with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 5 of “importing offline data corresponding to the data range into the online data table” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “importing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may import offline data corresponding to the data range into the online data table with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 6 of “prior to a step of performing the online prediction service using the data to be analyzed in a case where the pre-launch prediction service is launched online, the method further comprising performing a first predicting operation on data to be analyzed through the pre-launch prediction service to obtain a first prediction result;” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “performing operation (analyzing)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may perform a first predicting operation on data to be analyzed through the pre-launch prediction service to obtain a first prediction result with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 6 of “performing a second predicting operation on the data to be analyzed in an offline environment to obtain a second prediction result” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “performing operation (analyzing)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may perform a second predicting operation on the data to be analyzed in an offline environment to obtain a second prediction result with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 6 of “comparing the first prediction result with the second prediction result” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “comparing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may compare the first prediction result with the second prediction result with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 6 recites additional elements such as “launching the pre-launch prediction service online according, in a case where a difference between the first prediction result and the second prediction result is less than a threshold”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
The limitation of the claim 7 of “determining a downstream execution operator and a model prediction operator by analyzing the model file, the downstream execution operator being configured to characterize an operation that needs to be performed on the data to be analyzed before model prediction;” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine whether to launch the pre-launch prediction service according to a difference between the first prediction result and the second prediction result with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 7 recites additional elements such as “inputting the data to be analyzed into the downstream execution operator; and inputting an output of the downstream execution operator into the model prediction operator, an output of the model prediction operator being the second prediction result”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data displaying under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 8 recites additional elements such as “providing a graphical interface for setting an online prediction service; and receiving a pre-launch prediction service through the graphical interface; wherein the acquiring the model file from the offline training of the machine learning model comprises at least one of: acquiring a model file corresponding to the pre-launch prediction service from a server side; and receiving a uploaded model file”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 9 recites additional elements such as “displaying a model effect in the graphical interface; and displaying the online data table in the graphical interface”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data displaying under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 10 recites additional elements such as “displaying recommended resource configuration information in the graphical interface; and receiving resource configuration information through the graphical interface”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data displaying under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
The limitation of the claim 11 of “verifying whether a current environment of the pre-launch prediction service meets a launching requirement, after the pre-launch prediction service is set” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “verifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may verify whether a current environment of the pre-launch prediction service meets a launching requirement, after the pre-launch prediction service is set with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 12 of “verifying whether a prediction performance of the pre-launch prediction service is consistent with a prediction performance of the machine learning model in an offline environment, in response to that the current environment meets the launching requirement” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “verifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may verify whether a prediction performance of the pre-launch prediction service is consistent with a prediction performance of the machine learning model in an offline environment, in response to that the current environment meets the launching requirement with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 12 of “converting the pre-launch prediction service into the online prediction service, in response to that the prediction performance of the pre-launch prediction service is consistent or basically consistent with the prediction performance of the machine learning model in the offline environment” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “converting (writing or designing code)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may convert the pre-launch prediction service into the online prediction service, in response to that the prediction performance of the pre-launch prediction service is consistent or basically consistent with the prediction performance of the machine learning model in the offline environment with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 13 recites additional elements such as “acquiring specified sample data and an specified output field”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 13 recites additional elements such as “starting an offline prediction task used for simulating an offline running environment and a simulative prediction task used for simulating an online running environment to perform a prediction operation on the sample data, respectively;”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
The limitation of the claim 13 of “determining whether output results of the offline prediction task and the simulative prediction task for the output field are consistent” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine whether output results of the offline prediction task and the simulative prediction task for the output field are consistent with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 14 recites additional elements such as “providing a service detail page to display at least one item of the pre-launch prediction service: a basic parameter, a model parameter, a consistency verification result, and service status information, wherein the basic parameter comprises at least one of a service name, a service type, a running status, a deployment time, a running time, and a resource parameter, the model parameter comprises at least one of a model name, a model type, a model accuracy and a logarithmic loss value; the consistency verification result comprises a prediction result of one or more pieces of prediction data in an online environment and a scoring result of the one or more pieces of prediction data in the offline environment; and the service status information comprises at least one of a performance index, log information and running status monitoring information”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 15 recites additional elements such as “providing a service address of the online prediction service, in response to that the pre-launch prediction service is converted into the online prediction service”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 16 recites additional elements such as “displaying an online prediction result of one or more pieces of prediction data, in response to that the pre-launch prediction service is converted into the online prediction service”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data displaying under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 17 recites additional elements such as “receiving modification of one or more field values of the prediction data”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 17 recites additional elements such as “displaying an online prediction result of modified prediction data”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data displaying under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent claims 2-17 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process itself or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-17 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claim 1.
Reasons for Allowance
6. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior-art, Wu (CN110083334), in view of Acuna Agost (US PGPub 20190080362), in view of Gandhi (US PGPub 20090319588), and further in view of Lyons (US PGPub 20170193558) failed to disclose of a method for assisting launch of a machine learning model, executable by at least one computing device, the method comprising: acquiring a model file from offline training of the machine learning model; determining a training data table used in a model training process by analyzing the model file; creating in an online database an online data table having consistent table information with the training data table; and importing at least a part of offline data into the online data table, deploying a pre-launch prediction service for realizing a prediction function of the machine learning model; and performing an online prediction service using data to be analyzed in a case where the pre- launch prediction service is launched online, wherein the data to be analyzed is in the online data table, as recited by the independent claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, the closest prior-art found, Wu, Acuna Agost, Gandhi and Lyons discloses of a method for assisting launch of a machine learning model, executable by at least one computing device, the method comprising: acquiring a model file from offline training of the machine learning model; determining a training data table used in a model training process by analyzing the model file; creating in an online database an online data table; and importing at least a part of offline data.
Individually, Wu teaches of a model online method, wherein the method comprises: receiving the data modelling instruction input by the user, the data modelling command for requesting the created machine learning model according to said data modelling instruction created machine learning model, and generating a serialized model file and the model description file of the machine learning model, a file the serialized model file is serialized format of the machine learning model, the model description file is file of attributes characterizing the machine learning model; model distribution instruction input by the receiving user; according to universal service script template and the model description file, generating new service script according to mirror the new service script and the serialized model file generate model; generating the POD according to the mirror image of the model, so that the machine learning model is deployed online.
Acuna Agost teaches that firstly, it overcomes limitations with linking of offline and online data. In particular, the machine learning model itself, which is trained on offline data and subsequently executed on online data, effectively becomes the means of linkage. Secondly, it is not relevant that the unidentified online users may not correspond with any of the customers/clients having records in the offline database. In summary, embodiments of the present invention provide systems and methods employing machine learning models to classify unidentified online users, using limited information, into different traveler categories using training data derived from offline databases containing records relating to individually-distinguishable travelers. In this way, the machine learning models effectively provide a ‘smart’ linkage between rich offline data and limited online data.
Gandhi teaches that further updates include a scenario involving a parallel historical database, in which the tables of sensitive data include online tables in a primary database and historical tables in a history database, the historical tables paralleling corresponding online tables. In such a scenario, the history database including previous updates to the online database and the scripts 128 further perform updates to the historical database, as shown at step 331.
Lyons teaches that while the foregoing description discusses impressions that are received from user computing devices as directed by a webpage of a website, impressions may be received in any other manner. For example, an impression may be received from offline data (e.g., television viewing activity, radio listening activity, purchases in a bricks-and-mortar store, etc.). In some examples, offline data is imported to the classification provider 110 as simulated online data. For example, the offline data is transmitted to the example impression handler 150 as individual impression events using the same type of message (e.g., a hypertext transfer protocol request) as is used by the user computing device 104 to transmit the impression at the instruction of the webpage of the example media provider 106. The offline data may be matched/tagged to the same user identifiers used for online data (e.g., cookie identifier values) (e.g., the offline data may be transmitted in a manner that simulates/spoofs the online data submission).
However, the prior-art, Wu, Acuna Agost, Gandhi and Lyons failed to disclose the following subject matter such as “creating in an online database an online data table having consistent table information with the offline training data table to import the online data into the offline data”.
Claim 18 is a system claim, similar to the claim 1 and Claim 19 is a product claim, similar to the claim 1 and Claim 20 is another system claim, also similar to the claim 1.
Therefore, the prior-art, Wu, Acuna Agost, Gandhi and Lyons failed to teach the method of claim 1, the system of claim 18, the product of claim 19 and the system of claim 20 as well as their dependent claims. Thus, claims 1-20 contain allowable subject matter.
7. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 18, 19 and 20 and their dependent claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding an argument of the remark on pages 8-11 that the claim limitations cannot be performed as mental process in a human mind since they are executed by a computer, the examiner would like to point out that the claim limitations subject to mental processes executed by a general-purpose computer can be still considered as mental processes as follows. And as for the particular amendment to be considered either abstract idea such as mental process or insignificant additional element, please see the updated 101 Abstract Idea rejection according to the amendment.
2106.04(a)(2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-07.2022]
III. MENTAL PROCESSES
C. A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process
Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures “can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary.” 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of “anonymous loan shopping” recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be “performed by humans without a computer”).
In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.
1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification in explaining that the claimed steps of voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation are “human cognitive actions” that humans have performed for hundreds of years. The claims therefore recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed voting steps were performed on a computer. 887 F.3d at 1385, 126 USPQ2d at 1504. Another example is Versata, in which the patentee claimed a system and method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization that was implemented using general purpose computer hardware. 793 F.3d at 1312-13, 1331, 115 USPQ2d at 1685, 1699. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the claims were performed on a generic computer, but still described the claims as “directed to the abstract idea of determining a price, using organizational and product group hierarchies, in the same way that the claims in Alice were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and the claims in Bilski were directed to the abstract idea of risk hedging.” 793 F.3d at 1333; 115 USPQ2d at 1700-01.
2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification when explaining that the claimed electronic post office, which recited limitations describing how the system would receive, screen and distribute email on a computer network, was analogous to how a person decides whether to read or dispose of a particular piece of mail and that “with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper”. 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. Another example is FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in FairWarning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were “the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries.” 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.
3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of “anonymous loan shopping”, which was a concept that could be “performed by humans without a computer.” 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.
Regarding another argument of the remark on page 12 that the claim constitutes a specific technical improvement to the deployment process of machine learning model, the examiner would like to point out that in order to determine if additional element is integrating the abstract idea into a practical application, 1) The specification should describe the claimed improvement to achieve the desired goal and 2) The claimed improvement should be reflected at least in the additional elements by specifying how the claimed improvement performs the additional element to improve functioning of a computer or existing technical field.
2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field [R-07.2022]
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.
I. RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS FOR EVALUATING WHETHER ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS INTEGRATE A JUDICIAL EXCEPTION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION
The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have identified a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements demonstrate that a claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. The list of considerations here is not intended to be exclusive or limiting. Additional elements can often be analyzed based on more than one type of consideration and the type of consideration is of no import to the eligibility analysis. Additional discussion of these considerations, and how they were applied in particular judicial decisions, is provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a) through (c) and MPEP § 2106.05(e) through (h).
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Conclusion
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 JAE UK JEON whose telephone number is (571)270-3649. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm. 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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/JAE U JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193