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:
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are amended.
Response to Remarks:
Regarding 101:
The Applicant has submitted claim amendments that have furtherer the invention, but fail to overcome 101. As discussed in the interviews leading to this Final Office Action, the claims are not in a position to overcome 101 based on In Re Dejardins. In the In Re Dejardins Memo, Secretary Squires found that the claims overcome 101 based on the improvement to the machine learning model. Thus, as discussed in the interview, there was an improvement to the functioning of the computational performance. Here, as clarified in the interview, the claims amendments are simply retraining a model based on new data. There is no indication this improves machine learning model itself. Thus, it’s not analogous, as of yet, to In Re Dejardins. The Examiner welcomes an interview to further prosecution.
Regarding 102/103:
The Examiner has researched the claims as presented and maintains the indication of allowable subject matter of the Non-Final Office Action.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-20 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
PART I. IDENTIFY THE ABSTRACT IDEAS
Independent claims 1, 11, and 16, when “taken as a whole,” are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process.
To be an abstract idea under a mental process, the limitations may encompass, among other things, limitations that can be accomplished by the human mind.
Here, the limitations of claim 1, similarly claims 11 and 16 may be accomplished by a person/human mind. Such as, “…obtaining downstream consumer information, the downstream consumer information… an inference model bias preference; obtaining data processing system information for the data processing systems, the data processing system information indicating quantities of types of the inference models that are hosted by the data processing systems;
performing, using the inference model bias preference and the data processing system
information, a bias analysis for the inference models to identify a first potential
change to an execution plan, the first potential change being a member of a set of
potential changes; implementing at least one potential change of the set of potential changes to the execution plan to obtain an updated execution plan for the inference models; and
updating a distribution of the inference models based on the updated execution plan by at
least: retraining at least one inference model among the inference models to obtain an
updated and retrained one of the at least one inference model, the at least
one inference model being a trained machine learning model; and
providing the updated and retrained one of the at least one inference model to a data
processing system among the data processing systems that hosted the at
least one inference model to replace the at least one inference model with
the updated and retrained one of the at least one inference model…” are all limitations that maybe accomplished with just the human mind and/or pen and paper.
Moreover, the Examiner further asserts that dependent claims of 2-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are similarly directed to the abstract idea. Since these claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Office must determine whether the remaining limitations “do significantly more” than describe the abstract idea.
PART II. DETERMINE WHETHER ANY ELEMENT, OR COMBINATION, AMOUNTS TO
“SIGNIFICANTLY MORE” THAN THE ABSTRACT IDEA ITSELF
Under the Alice framework, claims 1, 11, and 16 do not include any limitations amounting to
significantly more than the abstract idea, alone. Claims 1, 11, and 16 do include various
elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include “…memory…computer program instructions…processor …data processing system”
Examiner submits that the elements such as, memory, processor, computer program instructions, databases., user interface, data processing system and computing system are generic computing elements performing generic computing functions. Other elements, such as, response management system and/or service request queue are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As a result, these computing elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Once these limitations were discounted from the claims as non-indicative indication integration into a practical application all that remained was the abstract principle, which is not enough. These limitations do not provide sufficient additional features or limit the abstract concept in a meaningful way. As a result, claims 1, 11, and 16 do not include limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite various limitation elements which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The use of generic computer elements, such as these, do not transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. These limitation elements only add generic computer components to otherwise-ineligible claims.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Further, Examiner notes that the additional limitations, when considered as an ordered combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements individually.
Having examined each of the limitations of the claimed invention — individually and collectively — Applicant’s additional elements perform routine operations, including those identified by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions. Viewed as a whole, these additional elements (recited in claims with a judicial exception) do not qualify as significantly more than a claimed judicial exception (e.g., the claims do not: (1) include improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) include improvements to the functioning of a claimed computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or add unconventional steps that confine the claims to a particular useful application; or (6) present other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see the December 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, p. 74624)). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
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 ZAHRA ELKASSABGI whose telephone number is (571)270-7943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 11:30 to 8:00.
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, Rob Wu can be reached at 571.272.6045. 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.
ZAHRA . ELKASSABGI
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623