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 .
Claims 1 – 4, 6 – 11, 13 – 18 and 20 – 23 are presented for examination.
Claims 1 – 4, 6 – 11 and 15 – 18 have been amended.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 have been cancelled.
Claims 21 – 23 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
With respect to 101:
Applicant argues:
Applicant argues that the claims allegedly provide an improvement to the technological field of training a machine learning model, as stated on pages 10 – 13 of the remarks.
Examiner’s answer:
Regarding the Applicant’s assertion that the claim as a whole is directed to a n improvement to training a machine learning model, the Examiner respectfully disagrees on pages 10 – 13 of the Applicant’s remarks. The Applicant points to the following paragraphs of their specification to prove improvement, [0001 – 0002] and [0011 – 00017], [0001 - 0002]: recites background information of the invention but only states the use case at a general level and does not provide specific steps to that an ordinary artisan would see as an improvement to the art. [0011 – 0017], recites the training of the ML model at a high-level of generality and does not provide specific steps to that an ordinary artisan would see as an improvement to the art. Thus, the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to 103:
The Examiner has found the arguments with respect to 103 persuasive and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the probability of the third plurality of entities specifies a confidence value that the second third of entities belong to the class.”. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will assume the Applicant meant “the probability of the third plurality of entities specifies a confidence value that the third plurality of entities belong to the class”. Claims 2 – 4, 6, 7, 9 – 11, 13, 14, 16 – 18 and 20 – 23 have inherit this informality from the independent claims. 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 1 – 4, 6 – 11, 13 – 18 and 20 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following sections follow the 2019 PEG guidelines for analyzing subject matter eligibility.
The analysis below of the claims’ subject matter eligibility follows the 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”)
and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial
Intelligence, 89 Fed. Reg. 58128-58138 (July 17, 2024) (“2024 AI SME Update”).
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined
whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the
statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed
to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first
prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception
(e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If
it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis
proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the
claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined at step 2A,
Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the
analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the
exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of
elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception
into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong1:
generating, a first set of data, wherein the first set of data comprises a first plurality of entities, and the first plurality of entities comprise a first plurality of features; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
modifying, the first set of data by processing the first set of data resulting in a second set of data, wherein the second set of data comprises a second plurality of entities, and the second plurality of entities comprise a second plurality of features, the second plurality of features including at least one feature from the first plurality of entities; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
predicting, a third set of data based on the at least one ML model, wherein the third set of data comprises a third plurality of entities, and the third plurality of entities comprise a third plurality of features, the third plurality of features including the first plurality of features; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
classifying, by the at least one processor, the first, second, and third plurality of entities by a class, wherein the classifying comprises: assigning, a probability to each of the first, second, and third plurality of entities, wherein the probability of the first plurality of entities specifies a confidence value that the first plurality of entities belong to the class, the probability of the second plurality of entities specifies a confidence value that the second plurality of entities belong to the class, and the probability of the third plurality of entities specifies a confidence value that the second third of entities belong to the class (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
generating, by at least one processor (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
modifying, by the at least one processor, (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
extracting, by the at least one processor, the second set of data to be used in the ML training process based at least in part on the at least one ML model; (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
training, by the at least one processor, the at least one ML model using the augmented set of data; (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
predicting, by the at least one processor, (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
classifying, by the at least one processor (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
assigning, by the at least one processor (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
updating, by the at least one processor and based on the probability of the first plurality of entities, the probability of the second plurality of entities, and the probability of the third plurality of entities, a model weight of the at least one ML model to indicate that the at least one feature of the second plurality of features overfits the at least one ML model. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
generating, by at least one processor (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
modifying, by the at least one processor, (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
extracting, by the at least one processor, the second set of data to be used in the ML training process based at least in part on the at least one ML model; (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
training, by the at least one processor, the at least one ML model using the augmented set of data; (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
predicting, by the at least one processor, (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
classifying, by the at least one processor (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
assigning, by the at least one processor (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
updating, by the at least one processor and based on the probability of the first plurality of entities, the probability of the second plurality of entities, and the probability of the third plurality of entities, a model weight of the at least one ML model to indicate that the at least one feature of the second plurality of features overfits the at least one ML model. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
The courts have found that generally linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a
particular technological environment or field of use does not qualify as “significantly more”.
(See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
As an ordered whole, the claim is directed to method of generating datasets and classifying them, this is nothing more than using machine learning models to classify the provided data. Nothing in the claim provides significantly more than this. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated.
statistically dropping at least one feature from the second plurality of features. (Mathematical Concepts: are defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations.)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. (Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “removing features from a dataset” of base claim 1) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., removing features from a dataset of base claim 1) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated.
replacing at least one feature from the second plurality of features with a dummy value. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. (Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “removing features from a dataset” of base claim 1) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., removing features from a dataset of base claim 1) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated.
statistically dropping at least one feature from the second plurality of features (Mathematical Concepts: are defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations.)
replacing at least one other feature from the second plurality of features with a dummy value. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. (Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “removing features from a dataset” of base claim 1) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., removing features from a dataset of base claim 1) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible
matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated. Please see the analysis of
claim 1 above. Regarding the method steps recited in claim 1, these steps cover mental processes
based on creating and modifying gradients.
Therefore, claim 6 is directed to an abstract idea – mental processes (i.e., observation and
evaluation/judgment/opinion).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
wherein at least one entity of the first or second plurality of entities is absent at an inference time. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein at least one entity of the first or second plurality of entities is absent at an inference time. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h))
The courts have found that generally linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a
particular technological environment or field of use does not qualify as “significantly more”.
(See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 7 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated.
wherein the class is at least one of a match, a partial match, and not a match. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. (Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “removing features from a dataset” of base claim 1) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., removing features from a dataset of base claim 1) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8
Step 1: The claim recites a system, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong1:
generate a first set of data, wherein the first set of data comprises a first plurality of entities and the first plurality of entities comprise a first plurality of features; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
modify the first set of data by processing the first set of data resulting in a second set of data, wherein the second set of data comprises a second plurality of entities, and the second plurality of entities comprise a second plurality of features, the second plurality of features including at least one feature from the first plurality of entities (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
predict a third set of data based on the at least one ML model, wherein the third set of data comprises a third plurality of entities, and the third plurality of entities comprise a third plurality of features, the third plurality of features including the first plurality of features; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
classify the first, second, and third plurality of entities by a class wherein, to classify the first, second, and third plurality of entities, (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
assign a probability to each of the first, second, and third plurality of entities, wherein the probability of the first plurality of entities specifies a confidence value that the first plurality of entities belong to the class, the probability of the second plurality of entities specifies a confidence value that the second plurality of entities belong to the class, and the probability of the third plurality of entities specifies a confidence value that the second third of entities belong to the class (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
a memory (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h))
at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h))
extract the second set of data to be used in a machine learning (ML) training process based at least in part on at least one ML model; (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
train the at least one ML model using the augmented set of data; (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
to classify the first, second, and third plurality of entities, the at least one processor is further configured to: (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
update, based on the probability of the first plurality of entities, the probability of the second plurality of entities, and the probability of the third plurality of entities, a model weight of the at least one ML model to indicate that the at least one feature of the second plurality of features overfits the at least one ML model. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
a memory (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h))
at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h))
extract the second set of data to be used in a machine learning (ML) training process based at least in part on at least one ML model; (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
train the at least one ML model using the augmented set of data; (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
to classify the first, second, and third plurality of entities, the at least one processor is further configured to: (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
update, based on the probability of the first plurality of entities, the probability of the second plurality of entities, and the probability of the third plurality of entities, a model weight of the at least one ML model to indicate that the at least one feature of the second plurality of features overfits the at least one ML model. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
The courts have found that generally linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a
particular technological environment or field of use does not qualify as “significantly more”.
(See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
As an ordered whole, the claim is directed to system of generating datasets and classifying them, this is nothing more than using machine learning models to classify the provided data. Nothing in the claim provides significantly more than this. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 incorporates the rejection of claim 8.
Step 1: The claim recites a system, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 8 are incorporated.
statistically drop at least one feature from the second plurality of features. (Mathematical Concepts: are defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations.)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. (Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “removing features from a dataset” of base claim 1) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., removing features from a dataset of base claim 1) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 incorporates the rejection of claim 8.
Step 1: The claim recites a system, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 8 are incorporated.
replace at least one feature from the second plurality of features with a dummy value. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. (Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “removing features from a dataset” of base claim 1) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., removing features from a dataset of base claim 1) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 incorporates the rejection of claim 8.
Step 1: The claim recites a system, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 8 are incorporated.
statistically drop at least one feature from the second plurality of features (Mathematical Concepts: are defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations.)
replace at least one other feature from the second plurality of features with a dummy value. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. (Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “removing features from a dataset” of base claim 1) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., removing features from a dataset of base claim 1) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 incorporates the rejection of claim 8.
Step 1: The claim recites a system, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible
matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 8 are incorporated. Please see the analysis of
claim 8 above. Regarding the method steps recited in claim 8, these steps cover mental processes
based on creating and modifying gradients.
Therefore, claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea – mental processes (i.e., observation and
evaluation/judgment/opinion).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
wherein at least one entity of the first or second plurality of entities is absent at an inference time. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein at least one entity of the first or second plurality of entities is absent at an inference time. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h))
The courts have found that generally linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a
particular technological environment or field of use does not qualify as “significantly more”.
(See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 14 incorporates the rejection of claim 8.
Step 1: The claim recites a system, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 8 are incorporated.
wherein the class is at least one of a match, a partial match, and not a match. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. (Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “removing features from a dataset” of base claim 1) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., removing features from a dataset of base claim 1) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable device, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong1:
generating a first set of data, wherein the first set of data comprises a first plurality of entities, and the first plurality of entities comprise a first plurality of features; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
modifying the first set of data by processing the first set of data resulting in a second set of data, wherein the second set of data comprises a second plurality of entities, and the second plurality of entities comprise a second plurality of features, the second plurality of features including at least one feature from the first plurality of entities; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
predicting a third set of data based on the at least one ML model, wherein the third set of data comprises a third plurality of entities, and the third plurality of entities comprise a third plurality of features, the third plurality of features including the first plurality of features; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
classifying the first, second, and third plurality of entities by a class, wherein the classifying comprises: assigning a probability to each of the first, second, and third plurality of entities, wherein the probability of the first plurality of entities specifies a confidence value that the first plurality of entities belong to the class, the probability of the second plurality of entities specifies a confidence value that the second plurality of entities belong to the class, and the probability of the third plurality of entities specifies a confidence value that the second third of entities belong to the class (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
extracting the second set of data to be used in a machine learning (ML) training process based at least in part on at least one ML model; (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
training the at least one ML model using the augmented set of data; (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
updating, based on the probability of the first plurality of entities, the probability of the second plurality of entities, and the probability of the third plurality of entities, a model weight of the at least one ML model to indicate that the at least one feature of the second plurality of features overfits the at least one ML model. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
extracting the second set of data to be used in a machine learning (ML) training process based at least in part on at least one ML model; (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
training the at least one ML model using the augmented set of data; (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
updating, based on the probability of the first plurality of entities, the probability of the second plurality of entities, and the probability of the third plurality of entities, a model weight of the at least one ML model to indicate that the at least one feature of the second plurality of features overfits the at least one ML model. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
As an ordered whole, the claim is directed to method of generating datasets and classifying them, this is nothing more than using machine learning models to classify the provided data. Nothing in the claim provides significantly more than this. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 incorporates the rejection of claim 15.
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable device, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 15 are incorporated.
statistically dropping at least one feature from the second plurality of features. (Mathematical Concepts: are defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations.)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. (Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “removing features from a dataset” of base claim 1) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., removing features from a dataset of base claim 1) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 incorporates the rejection of claim 15.
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable device, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 15 are incorporated.
replacing at least one feature from the second plurality of features with a dummy value. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. (Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “removing features from a dataset” of base claim 1) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., removing features from a dataset of base claim 1) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 incorporates the rejection of claim 15.
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable device, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 15 are incorporated.
statistically dropping at least one feature from the second plurality of features (Mathematical Concepts: are defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations.)
replacing at least one other feature the second plurality of features with a dummy value. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. (Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “removing features from a dataset” of base claim 1) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., removing features from a dataset of base claim 1) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 incorporates the rejection of claim 15.
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable device, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 15 are incorporated.
wherein the class is at least one of a match, a partial match, or not a match. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. (Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “removing features from a dataset” of base claim 1) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., removing features from a dataset of base claim 1) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 21 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated.
based on the updating, dropping, the at least one feature of the plurality of features from a first document or a second document (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
based on the updating, dropping, by the at least one processor and using the at least one ML model (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
wherein the first document corresponds to the first plurality of entities and wherein the second document corresponds to the third plurality of entities. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
based on the updating, dropping, by the at least one processor and using the at least one ML model (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
wherein the first document corresponds to the first plurality of entities and wherein the second document corresponds to the third plurality of entities. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 22 incorporates the rejection of claim 8.
Step 1: The claim recites a system, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 8 are incorporated.
based on the updating of the of the model weight, drop, the at least one feature of the plurality of features from a first document or a second document (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
based on the updating of the of the model weight, drop, using the at least one ML model (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
wherein the first document corresponds to the first plurality of entities and wherein the second document corresponds to the third plurality of entities. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
based on the updating of the of the model weight, drop, using the at least one ML model (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
wherein the first document corresponds to the first plurality of entities and wherein the second document corresponds to the third plurality of entities. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 23 incorporates the rejection of claim 15.
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable device, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 15 are incorporated.
based on the updating, the at least one feature of the plurality of features from a first document or a second document (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
based on the updating, dropping, using the at least one ML model (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
wherein the first document corresponds to the first plurality of entities and wherein the second document corresponds to the third plurality of entities. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
based on the updating, dropping, using the at least one ML model (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
wherein the first document corresponds to the first plurality of entities and wherein the second document corresponds to the third plurality of entities. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(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 KYLE ALLMAN THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3671. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 6 a.m. - 3 p.m. ET..
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, Kamran Afshar can be reached at (571) 272-7796. 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.
/K.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125