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 Objections
Claims 22-26, 28-33, 35-40 are objected to because of the following informalities: they depend on canceled claims and claims should not depend on higher numbered claims (25 may be depending on 27 if a “2” is merely inserted in dependent claim numbers. Appropriate correction is required.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: claims 21-40 are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
With respect to claims 21, 27, 34:
2A Prong 1:
cause the evaluation of the [machine learning model] referenced in the query to determine the inferred data values for the one or more records in the table (mental process of modeling with assistance of pen and paper; A human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data);
cause an evaluation of respective data in the specified column to determine one or more records in the table of the data warehouse to [add inferred data values] determined from the [machine learning model] referenced in the query (Abstract idea of analyzing data. Mental process. A human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
A system, comprising: a plurality of computing devices, respectively implement a processor and a memory, configured to implement a provider network service, the provider network service (computer component is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358);
receive, via [an interface] of the provider network service, a query statement that is stated in Structured Query Language (SQL), wherein the interface supports queries stated in the query language, and wherein the query statement specifies a column in a table of a data warehouse and a [machine learning model] (mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
machine learning model (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: high level application of a previously trained model to make a prediction);
Claim 34 computer readable storage media for storing programs (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
add inferred data values (mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
return, via [the interface] of the [provider network service], a result of the query based on the inferred data values from the evaluation of the [machine learning model] determined for the one or more records (mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
A system, comprising: a plurality of computing devices, respectively implement a processor and a memory, configured to implement a provider network service, the provider network service (computer component is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358);
receive, via [an interface] of the provider network service, a query statement that is stated in Structured Query Language (SQL), wherein the interface supports queries stated in the query language, and wherein the query statement specifies a column in a table of a data warehouse and a [machine learning model] (mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
machine learning model (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: high level application of a previously trained model to make a prediction);
Claim 34 computer readable storage media for storing programs (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
add inferred data values (mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
return, via [the interface] of the [provider network service], a result of the query based on the inferred data values from the evaluation of the [machine learning model] determined for the one or more records (mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
Further, the receiving, adding, returning steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong 2, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The receiving and/or transmitting limitations constitute extra-solution activity. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("That a computer receives and sends the information over a network-with no further specification-is not even arguably inventive."). The court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely Receiving and/or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed receiving/transmitting steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 22-26, 28-33, 35-40, they depend on canceled claims and if only the dependency is amended then the details of how they are rejected under USC 101 will be added but currently they do not depend on any existing claims and are not statutory.
It is well-settled that collecting and analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds or by mathematical algorithms, without more, are mental processes in the abstract-idea category. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[S]electing certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis" is abstract); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Organizing, displaying, and manipulating data of particular documents" is abstract.); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (compiling and combining disparate data sources to generate a full picture of a user's activity, identity, frequency of activity, and the like in a computer environment to detect potential fraud does not differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes); In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ("These steps can be performed by a human, using 'observation, evaluation, judgment, [and] opinion,' because they involve making determinations and identifications, which are mental tasks humans routinely do").
The claims amount to data analysis/manipulation and using some form of AI as a tool. The transformation of data, or the mere "manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic 'abstract idea,"' is not a transformation sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
Claiming AI on a high level can amount to using a black box without specifying any real details of how the AI operates or what’s in the black box. The claims need to specify the technical details of the AI.
Although the claims may specify an improvement they are only improving the abstract idea not a computer.
Using a trained machine learning model to e.g., infer amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Using AI to infer amounts to a mental process in the same way that a human can predict the weather with or without a computer.
"The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea." MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).III. "Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions." Id. For the purposes of this abstract idea, "[t]he courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation."
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
BenHarush (US 20240004932) teaches query models (0046-0047) and queries referencing columns (0049);
Narayanaswamy (US 11,636,124) teaches a request to invoke a model to generate an inference (Col. 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R VINCENT whose telephone number is (571)272-3080. The examiner can normally be reached ~Mon-Fri 12-8:30.
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, Alexey Shmatov can be reached at 5712703428. 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.
/DAVID R VINCENT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2123