DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment/Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4, 8-10, 13-16, 18, and 20 were amended.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 11-12, 17, and 19 were cancelled.
Claims 1, 4, 8-10, 13-16, 18, and 20 are pending and examined herein.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 1, 4, 8-10, 13-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed 4/30/2026, with respect to the objection of claim 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed 4/30/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 3-6 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 3-6 and 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/30/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, see pages 12-18, that the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection misapplies the Alice framework.
Applicant argues "Here, the Office Action's step-by-step labeling of individual claim limitations as either abstract or generic mirrors precisely the kind of claim dissection that the Supreme Court in Diehr forbids."
Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106 provides a flowchart for determining whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility. The analysis of the claim presented in the previous office action reflects the flowchart.
Applicant argues "Relatedly, the Office Action's reasoning effectively collapses all software inventions into a binary of "abstract idea" plus "generic execution." Under that logic, functional software limitations are treated as abstract by default, and any computer implementation is dismissed as generic regardless of what the software actually does or how it alters system behavior."
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The analysis of the claims followed the subject matter eligibility flowchart, and specific reasoning in accordance with MPEP 2106 was attached to each limitation (in combination with the other limitations). Note that Step 2A Prong 1 is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception, Step 2A Prong 2 is to analyze whether the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and Step 2B is to analyze whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicant argues "The Office Action's approach is also flawed because it treats a determination that claim elements are "generic" as dispositive of eligibility, without considering whether those elements are arranged in a non-conventional way to solve a technical problem."
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The previous office action specifically stated that the additional elements were analyzed "taken alone or in combination with the other additional elements”. The ordered combination was analyzed.
Applicant argues "As stated in MPEP 2106.07: ‘The rejection should set forth a prima facie case of ineligibility under the substantive law. The concept of the prima facie case is a procedural tool of patent examination, which allocates the burdens going forward between the examiner and applicant. In particular, the initial burden is on the examiner to explain why a claim or claims are ineligible for patenting clearly and specifically, so that applicant has sufficient notice and is able to effectively respond.’ Because the Office Action provides only conclusory rationale that can be applied to any software invention, this initial burden has not been met and the burden should not move to applicant."
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The clear and specific reasoning, following the flowchart in MPEP 2106, was presented to Applicant. The analysis does not preclude all software inventions, and is specific to the set of claims.
Applicant argues, see page 16, "What specifically is the abstract idea that the Office asserts the claims are directed to? Simply stating some limitations of the claims recite a "mental process" is insufficient as a matter of law as the inquiry under step 2A, prong 2 is not whether individual portions of the claims recite abstract ideas, but whether the claims as a whole are directed to an abstract idea. While the Office Action labels individual claim limitations as "mental processes" for purposes of step 2A, prong 1, it never articulates what the claims as a whole is allegedly directed to under step 2A, prong 2. Identifying abstract-sounding limitations is not a substitute for identifying the abstract idea itself. Without identifying what abstract idea the claims are purportedly directed to, the Office Action never meaningfully addresses step 2A, prong 2, which requires evaluating whether the claims are directed to a particular abstract idea or whether the claims integrate that abstract idea into a practical application."
MPEP 2106.04(II)(A) states "Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Together, these prongs represent the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, which determines whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception." Thus, the recited judicial exceptions from Step 2A, Prong 1 are the judicial exceptions that the claim is directed to. Both prongs were represented in the previous office action. The abstract ideas are clearly identified.
Applicant argues "Why does the Office believe that the technical improvements discussed in the specification and captured by the claims is not an improvement to technology or a technological field and integrates the purported abstract idea into a practical?"
MPEP 2106.05(a) states "During examination, the examiner should analyze the "improvements" consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement. Generally, examiners are not expected to make a qualitative judgement on the merits of the asserted improvement. If the examiner concludes the disclosed invention does not improve technology, the burden shifts to applicant to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology."
The specification was evaluated for a technical explanation of an asserted improvement to technology and the claims were evaluated for reflection of the asserted improvement. No improvement to technology was found. See below response to arguments regarding the technical improvements for further information.
Each additional element is followed by an explanation of why they do not integrate the judicial exception, specifically labeled with considerations from MPEP 2106.
Applicant argues "Why does the Office believe that the claims do not recite an inventive concept that recites significantly more than the purported abstract idea?"
Each additional element is followed by an explanation of why they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, specifically labeled with considerations from MPEP 2106.
Applicant argues "Absent such analysis, the rejection does not provide the articulated reasoning required under §101 or the MPEP, and does not place Applicant on notice of the specific factual and legal basis for the rejection."
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The analysis of the claims followed the subject matter eligibility flowchart, and specific reasoning in accordance with MPEP 2106 followed each limitation.
Applicant argues, see pages, 18-19, that the specification “discusses technical deficiencies in existing anomaly-detection techniques for tabular data used in training AI systems” and that the invention “introduces a new representational and analytical layer for tabular anomaly detection.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim is directed to the abstract ideas of data analysis (mental process) and mathematical concepts. The only additional elements are the initial insignificant data gathering of the tabular data records, that the generating predicted values is “using a machine learning model”, which is using a computer as a tool and ‘apply it’, and outputting the resulting scores/labels in an order, which is insignificant outputting. See below analysis for further explanation. The fact that the tabular data records are “model training data” essentially limits the invention to the field of use of model training/AI, but is not a meaningful limitation. The claim does not provide any operations that would change a machine learning model or even change the training data, rather generates restructured data. The claims do not state that the restructured data is used for retraining a model, and thus cannot improve AI technology.
As the claims do not improve technology, they do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application in Step 2A nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception in Step 2B.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 21-24, filed 4/30/202, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1, 4, 8-10, 13-16, 18, and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1, 4, 8-10, 13-16, 18, and 20 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 8 recites the limitation " The one or more computer storage media of claim 7.” However, claim 7 is cancelled. For purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted as dependent on claim 1.
Claims 13-15 recite the limitation "The computer-implemented method of claim 11.” However, claim 11 is cancelled. For purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted as dependent on claim 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 8-10, 13-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 16 recite the limitation “an anomaly label” in the limitation "assigning an anomaly label to the first data element based on the reconstruction loss." However, the limitation "labeling each data element of each tabular data record with an anomaly label indicating whether each data element is a potential anomaly, wherein a first data element of a first tabular data record is labeled by" also states “an anomaly label”. It is unclear whether “an anomaly label” in the limitation "assigning an anomaly label to the first data element based on the reconstruction loss" refers to the same anomaly label as in the limitation "labeling each data element of each tabular data record with an anomaly label indicating whether each data element is a potential anomaly, wherein a first data element of a first tabular data record is labeled by" or if it is a different anomaly label. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as the same label.
Dependent claims 4, 8-9, 18, and 20 fail to resolve the issue and are rejected with the same rationale.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “an anomaly label” in the limitation "assigning an anomaly label to the first data element based on the reconstruction loss." However, the limitation "assigning, by the data element analysis component, a label to each data element indicative of whether each data element is anomalous, wherein a first data element of a first tabular data record is labeled by:" states “a label”. It is unclear whether “an anomaly label” in the limitation "assigning an anomaly label to the first data element based on the reconstruction loss" refers to the same label as in the limitation "assigning, by the data element analysis component, a label to each data element indicative of whether each data element is anomalous, wherein a first data element of a first tabular data record is labeled by” or if it is a different label. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as the same label.
Dependent claims 13-15 fail to resolve the issue and are rejected with the same rationale.
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, 8-10, 13-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
MPEP § 2109(III) sets out steps for evaluating whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject
matter. The analysis of claims 1, 4, 8-10, 13-16, 18, and 20, in accordance with these steps, follows.
Step 1 Analysis:
Step 1 is to determine whether the claim is directed to a statutory category (process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 1, 4, and 8-9 are directed to an article of manufacture, claims 10 and 13-15 are directed to a process, and claims 16, 18, and 20 are directed to a machine. All claims are directed to statutory categories and analysis proceeds.
Combined Step 2A Prong One, Step 2A Prong Two, and Step 2B Analysis:
Step 2A Prong One asks if the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon). If the claim recites a judicial exception, analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two, which asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. If the claim does not integrate the judicial exception, analysis proceeds to Step 2B, which asks if the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
None of the claims represent an improvement to technology.
Regarding claim 1, the following are abstract ideas:
labeling each data element of each tabular data record with an anomaly label indicating whether each data element is a potential anomaly, wherein a first data element is a labeled by: (Labelling each data element with an anomaly label can be practically performed in the human mind. This is a mental process.)
generating, … , a predicted value for an attribute corresponding to the first data element based on one or more other data elements of the first tabular data record, and (Generating a predicted value for an attribute based on other data elements can be practically performed in the human mind. This is a mental process.)
determining a reconstruction loss for the first data element based on the predicted value and an actual value of the attribute for the first data element, and (Determining a reconstruction loss is a mathematical calculation, which is a mathematical concept.)
assigning an anomaly label to the first data element based on the reconstruction loss; (Assigning an anomaly label based on the reconstruction loss can be practically performed in the human mind. This is a mental process.)
defining an evidence set for each attribute and each tabular data record based on the anomaly labels for the data elements, wherein: the evidence set for a first attribute comprises a set of tabular data records whose data element for the first attribute is labeled as a potential anomaly, and the evidence set for a first tabular data record comprises a set of attributes whose data element in the first tabular data record is labeled as a potential anomaly; (Defining/grouping data can be practically performed in the human mind. This is a mental process.)
generating an anomaly score for each attribute and each tabular data record using the evidence sets by: (Generating anomaly scores can be practically performed in the human mind. This is a mental process.)
(i) defining, based on the evidence sets, a cooperative game that quantifies contributions of co-occurring anomalous data elements, and (One could practically perform the defining of a cooperative game in the human mind (see [0052] of the specification, where defining a cooperative game entails defining a set of attributes as the set of players and performing calculations). This is a mental process.)
(ii) computing, from the cooperative game, a Shapley value for each attribute and each tabular data record as the anomaly scores (Computing Shapley values is performing mathematical calculations, which are mathematical concepts.)
determining anomalous data subsets in the model training data based on the anomaly scores for the attributes and the tabular data records, each anomalous data subset identifying a subset of attributes and a subset of tabular data records; and (Determining subsets in the data based on anomaly scores can be practically performed in the human mind. This is a mental process.)
The following claim elements are additional elements which, taken alone or in combination with the other additional elements, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception:
One or more computer storage media storing computer-useable instructions that, when used by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform operations, the operations comprising: (This limitation recites generic computer parts and processes; this amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception.)
receiving a set of tabular data records, each tabular data record comprising data elements for a plurality of attributes, each data element providing a value for a corresponding attribute; (Receiving data is a known process in computing. This amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception.)
using a machine learning model (This recites generic usage of a generic machine learning model, which is known in machine learning. This amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception.)
providing an output identifying the anomalous data subsets in the model training data, wherein the output comprises restructured tabular data in which (i) the attributes are ordered based on the anomaly scores for the attributes and (ii) the tabular data records are ordered based on the anomaly scores for the tabular data records. (Outputting data is an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), list 3, ex. iv.)
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The following is an abstract idea:
wherein a first subset of data elements are each labeled as a potential anomaly and a second subset of data elements data element as not a possible anomaly. (Labeling subsets of data elements as a potential/not a potential anomaly can be practically performed in the human mind. This is a mental process.)
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated herein. The following claim elements are additional elements which, taken alone or in combination with the other additional elements, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception:
wherein the cooperative game uses the evidence sets for attributes and records as players. (This is the insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. See MPEP § 2106.05(g), ‘Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated’, ex. i-iv.)
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The following claim elements are additional elements which, taken alone or in combination with the other additional elements, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception:
wherein the restructured tabular data includes a visual indicator identifying a first anomalous data subset. (This is the extra-solution activity of displaying information. See MPEP § 2106.05(II), list 2, ex. iv.)
Regarding claim 10, the following are abstract ideas:
assigning, by the data element analysis component, a label to each data element indicative of whether each data element is anomalous, wherein a first data element of a first tabular record is labeled by: (Assigning a label to data can be practically performed in the human mind. This is a mental process.)
determining, by an evidence set component, an evidence set for each attribute and each record using the labels; (Determining a set of data can be practically performed in the human mind. This is a mental process.)
generating, … , a predicted value for an attribute corresponding to the first data element based on one or more other data elements of the first tabular data record, and (Generating a predicted value for an attribute based on other data elements can be practically performed in the human mind. This is a mental process.)
determining a reconstruction loss for the first data element based on the predicted value and an actual value of the attribute for the first data element, and (Determining a reconstruction loss is a mathematical calculation, which is a mathematical concept.)
assigning an anomaly label to the first data element based on the reconstruction loss; (Assigning an anomaly label based on the reconstruction loss can be practically performed in the human mind. This is a mental process.)
determining, by an evidence set component, an evidence set for each attribute and each tabular data record using the labels, wherein: the evidence set for a first attribute comprises a set of tabular data records whose data element for the first attribute is labeled as a potential anomaly, and the evidence set for a first tabular data record comprises a set of attributes whose data element in the first tabular data record is labeled as a potential anomaly; (Defining/grouping data can be practically performed in the human mind. This is a mental process.)
generating an anomaly score for each attribute and each tabular data record using the evidence sets by: (Generating anomaly scores can be practically performed in the human mind. This is a mental process.)
(i) defining, based on the evidence sets, a cooperative game that quantifies contributions of co-occurring anomalous data elements, and (One could practically perform the defining of a cooperative game in the human mind (see [0052] of the specification, where defining a cooperative game entails defining a set of attributes as the set of players and performing calculations). This is a mental process.)
(ii) computing, from the cooperative game, a Shapley value for each attribute and each tabular data record as the anomaly scores (Computing Shapley values is performing mathematical calculations, which are mathematical concepts.)
determining anomalous data subsets in the model training data based on the anomaly scores for the attributes and the tabular data records, each anomalous data subset identifying a subset of attributes and a subset of tabular data records; and (Determining subsets in the data based on anomaly scores can be practically performed in the human mind. This is a mental process.)
The following claim elements are additional elements which, taken alone or in combination with the other additional elements, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception:
A computer-implemented method comprising: (This recites generic computer components and processes. This amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception.)
receiving, by a data element analysis component, model training data comprising tabular data having a set of records, each record including data elements for a set of attributes; (Receiving data is a known process in computing. This amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception.)
using a machine learning model (This recites generic usage of a generic machine learning model, which is known in machine learning. This amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception.)
outputting, by a user interface component, an indication of the anomalous data subsets in the model training data, wherein the output comprises restructured tabular data in which (i) the attributes are ordered based on the anomaly scores for the attributes and (ii) the tabular data records are ordered based on the anomaly scores for the tabular data records. (Outputting data is an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), list 3, ex. iv.)
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated herein. Further, the following are abstract ideas:
wherein a first subset of data elements are each labeled as a potential anomaly and a second subset of data elements data element as not a possible anomaly. (Labeling subsets of data elements as a potential/not a potential anomaly can be practically performed in the human mind. This is a mental process.)
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated herein. The following claim elements are additional elements which, taken alone or in combination with the other additional elements, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception:
wherein the cooperative game uses the evidence sets for attributes and records as players. (This is the insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. See MPEP § 2106.05(g), ‘Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated’, ex. i-iv.)
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated herein. The following claim elements are additional elements which, taken alone or in combination with the other additional elements, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception:
wherein the restructured tabular data includes a visual indicator identifying a first anomalous data subset. (This is the extra-solution activity of displaying information. See MPEP § 2106.05(II), list 2, ex. iv.)
Regarding claim 16, the following claim elements are additional elements which, taken alone or in combination with the other additional elements, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception:
A computer system comprising: (This recites generic computer components. This amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception.)
one or more processors; and (This recites generic computer components. This amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception.)
one or more computer storage media storing computer-useable instructions that, when used by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: (This recites generic computer components and processes. This amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception.)
The remainder of claim 16 recites substantially similar subject matter to claim 1 and is rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 18 and 20 recite substantially similar subject matter to claims 4 and 9 respectively and are rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JESSICA THUY PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2605. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 A.M. - 5:00 P.M..
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, Li Zhen can be reached at (571) 272-3768. 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.
/J.T.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2121
Prosecution Insights