Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 1-7 can be considered software per se.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 1 is drawn to a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 1 recites the following abstract ideas:
defining a use case type at a labeling platform - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
associating, at the labeling platform, a plurality of ML platforms with the use case type - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
selecting an ML platform from the plurality of ML platforms to train the ML model - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
map an ML platform agnostic format to a plurality of ML platform specific formats – This falls under the abstract idea(s) of collecting, displaying, and manipulating data.
mapping the configuration information from the ML platform agnostic format to an ML platform specific format of the selected ML platform – This falls under the abstract idea(s) of collecting, displaying, and manipulating data.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
A computer-implemented method for machine learning (ML) platform agnostic configuration of ML training – This amounts to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
providing a set of adapters to map an ML platform agnostic format to a plurality of ML platform specific formats – This amounts to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
receiving, at the labeling platform, a use case associated with the use case type, the use case comprising configuration information for an ML model, the configuration information formatted according to the ML platform agnostic format and comprising: a label space; a set of ML characteristics, the set of ML characteristics including a training configuration – The use case contains particular data but the claim merely recites the “receiving” of the data which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
using an adapter, from the set of adapters, that corresponds to the selected ML platform – This amounts to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
training the ML model using the selected ML platform and a set of training data – This amounts to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
A computer-implemented method for machine learning (ML) platform agnostic configuration of ML training – This amounts to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
providing a set of adapters to map an ML platform agnostic format to a plurality of ML platform specific formats – This amounts to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
receiving, at the labeling platform, a use case associated with the use case type, the use case comprising configuration information for an ML model, the configuration information formatted according to the ML platform agnostic format and comprising: a label space; a set of ML characteristics, the set of ML characteristics including a training configuration – The use case contains particular data but the claim merely recites the “receiving” of the data which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
using an adapter, from the set of adapters, that corresponds to the selected ML platform – This amounts to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
training the ML model using the selected ML platform and a set of training data – This amounts to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 2-3 and 7
Claims 2-3 and 7 recite a further observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III. There are no additional elements claimed in claims 2-3 and 7. The addition of a judicial exception to the judicial exceptions of claim 1 cannot render the subject matter eligible.
Claims 4-5
Claims 4-5 further elaborate on the additional elements of claim 1 but merely describe a type of data carried by the additional element, i.e. even with the additional detail of claims 4-5, the additional elements of claim 1 are practically unchanged and no detail is provided in claims 4-5 which provide a practical application or significantly more.
Claims 8-12, 14-19, and 21
Regarding claims 8-12, 14-19, and 21, the same abstract ideas and additional elements described above with respect to claims 1-5 and 7 are present and the same analysis is applicable. As for the additional elements of “a processor” and “non-transitory computer readable medium”, this again amounts to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, the selection of an adapter and subsequent handling of configuration information is not anticipated or rendered obvious in the prior art. The closest prior art is provided below with a brief explanation of relevant disclosure as well as shortcomings with respect to the invention of claims 1, 8 and 15.
Ma (US20190258904A1) represents the prior art which is closest to the claimed invention. In Figure 2A, a system is shown which compiles indicators for input data, i.e. configuration information, and a machine learning model is trained based on the configuration information. However, Ma does not describe multiple adapters or the particulars of the configuration information.
Yellapragada (US20200387814A1) discloses a procedure (see Figures 2A-B) similar to the claimed invention which involves certain configuration information. However, there is no disclosure or suggestion of the claimed adapters or their handling of the claimed configuration information.
Haigh (US20180307945A1) describes a configuration information format similar to the claimed invention, see Figure 3B. However, Haigh lacks any disclosure of adapters as claimed.
The prior art above, considered the closest prior art to the claimed invention, does not anticipate or render obvious the aforementioned features of claims 1, 8, or 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCHYLER S SANKS whose telephone number is (571)272-6125. The examiner can normally be reached 06:30 - 15:30 Central Time, M-F.
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, Michael Huntley can be reached at (303) 297-4307. 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.
/SCHYLER S SANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2129