DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 3/20/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 12, and 18 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “identifying a first simulation and a second simulation such that the first simulation is within a threshold similarity of the second simulation” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “generating a set of emergent simulations based at least in part on emergent hyperparameters, wherein the emergent hyperparameters are generated using hyperparameters of the first and second simulations” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “selecting a subset of the set of emergent simulations according to a diversity metric” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “detecting a causation variable in the selected subset of emergent simulations” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “generating a predictive simulation using the causation variable” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “generating a predictive simulation using the causation variable” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “generating a predictive simulation using the causation variable” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “generating a predictive simulation using the causation variable” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 2:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “determining similarities of pairs of the plurality of predictive simulations” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “generating code embeddings for a plurality of predictive simulations” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “generating code embeddings for a plurality of predictive simulations” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “generating code embeddings for a plurality of predictive simulations” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “generating code embeddings for a plurality of predictive simulations” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 3:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the generating of the code embeddings comprises encoding source code and code comments for the plurality of predictive simulations” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “wherein the generating of the code embeddings comprises encoding source code and code comments for the plurality of predictive simulations” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “wherein the generating of the code embeddings comprises encoding source code and code comments for the plurality of predictive simulations” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the generating of the code embeddings comprises encoding source code and code comments for the plurality of predictive simulations” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “wherein the generating of the code embeddings comprises encoding source code and code comments for the plurality of predictive simulations” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “wherein the generating of the code embeddings comprises encoding source code and code comments for the plurality of predictive simulations” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 4:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the determining of the similarities of pairs of the plurality of predictive simulations comprises using a feed forward neural network to determine the similarities based at least in part on the code embeddings” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “wherein the determining of the similarities of pairs of the plurality of predictive simulations comprises using a feed forward neural network to determine the similarities based at least in part on the code embeddings” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “wherein the determining of the similarities of pairs of the plurality of predictive simulations comprises using a feed forward neural network to determine the similarities based at least in part on the code embeddings” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the determining of the similarities of pairs of the plurality of predictive simulations comprises using a feed forward neural network to determine the similarities based at least in part on the code embeddings” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “wherein the determining of the similarities of pairs of the plurality of predictive simulations comprises using a feed forward neural network to determine the similarities based at least in part on the code embeddings” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “wherein the determining of the similarities of pairs of the plurality of predictive simulations comprises using a feed forward neural network to determine the similarities based at least in part on the code embeddings” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 5:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the generating of the set of emergent simulations comprises generating first generation offspring from the first and second simulations” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the generating of the set of emergent simulations comprises [] generating second generation offspring from the first generation offspring” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 6:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “generating the emergent hyperparameters by performing a crossover operation on chromosomal representations of the hyperparameters of the first and second simulations” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 7:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “generating the second generation offspring by performing a crossover operation on chromosomal representations of hyperparameters of pairs of first generation offspring” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 8:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the generating of the second generation offspring further comprises introducing a random mutation into one of the chromosomal representations” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 9:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the selecting of the subset of the set of emergent simulations comprises using a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization algorithm that identifies the subset as providing optimal diversity” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 10:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the detecting of the causation variable comprises detecting a variable having invariance across the subset of emergent simulations” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 11:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the first simulation and the second simulation are selected from among a plurality of predictive simulations stored in a repository” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, the limitation “wherein the first simulation and the second simulation are selected from among a plurality of predictive simulations stored in a repository” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the first simulation and the second simulation are selected from among a plurality of predictive simulations stored in a repository” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to storing and retrieving information in memory, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
No, the limitation “wherein the first simulation and the second simulation are selected from among a plurality of predictive simulations stored in a repository” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 12:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “identifying a first simulation and a second simulation such that the first simulation is within a threshold similarity of the second simulation” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “generating a set of emergent simulations based at least in part on emergent hyperparameters, wherein the emergent hyperparameters are generated using hyperparameters of the first and second simulations” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “selecting a subset of the set of emergent simulations according to a diversity metric” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “detecting a causation variable in the selected subset of emergent simulations” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “a computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform operations” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “generating a predictive simulation using the causation variable” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “generating a predictive simulation using the causation variable” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “a computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform operations” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “generating a predictive simulation using the causation variable” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “generating a predictive simulation using the causation variable” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 13:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the stored program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device in a data processing system” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, the limitation “wherein the stored program instructions are transferred over a network from a remote data processing system” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the stored program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device in a data processing system” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to storing and retrieving information in memory, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
No, the limitation “wherein the stored program instructions are transferred over a network from a remote data processing system” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 14:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the stored program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device in a server data processing system” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, the limitation “wherein the stored program instructions are downloaded in response to a request over a network to a remote data processing system for use in a computer readable storage device associated with the remote data processing system” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, the limitation “program instructions to meter use of the program instructions associated with the request” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “program instructions to meter use of the program instructions associated with the request” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “program instructions to generate an invoice based on the metered use” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “program instructions to generate an invoice based on the metered use” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the stored program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device in a server data processing system” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to storing and retrieving information in memory, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
No, the limitation “wherein the stored program instructions are downloaded in response to a request over a network to a remote data processing system for use in a computer readable storage device associated with the remote data processing system” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
No, the limitation “program instructions to meter use of the program instructions associated with the request” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “program instructions to meter use of the program instructions associated with the request” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “program instructions to generate an invoice based on the metered use” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “program instructions to generate an invoice based on the metered use” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 15:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the generating of the set of emergent simulations comprises generating first generation offspring from the first and second simulations” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the generating of the set of emergent simulations comprises [] generating second generation offspring from the first generation offspring” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 16:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “generating the emergent hyperparameters by performing a crossover operation on chromosomal representations of the hyperparameters of the first and second simulations” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 17:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “generating the second generation offspring by performing a crossover operation on chromosomal representations of hyperparameters of pairs of first generation offspring” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 18:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “identifying a first simulation and a second simulation such that the first simulation is within a threshold similarity of the second simulation” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “generating a set of emergent simulations based at least in part on emergent hyperparameters, wherein the emergent hyperparameters are generated using hyperparameters of the first and second simulations” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “selecting a subset of the set of emergent simulations according to a diversity metric” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “detecting a causation variable in the selected subset of emergent simulations” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “a computer system comprising a processor and one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable by the processor to cause the processor to perform operations” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “generating a predictive simulation using the causation variable” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “generating a predictive simulation using the causation variable” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “a computer system comprising a processor and one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable by the processor to cause the processor to perform operations” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “generating a predictive simulation using the causation variable” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “generating a predictive simulation using the causation variable” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 19:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the generating of the set of emergent simulations comprises generating first generation offspring from the first and second simulations” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the generating of the set of emergent simulations comprises [] generating second generation offspring from the first generation offspring” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 20:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “generating the emergent hyperparameters by performing a crossover operation on chromosomal representations of the hyperparameters of the first and second simulations” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 11-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Blank (“An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms: The Concept of Biological Evolution in Optimization,” 2020 August 14, https://towardsdatascience.com/an-introduction-to-genetic-algorithms-the-concept-of-biological-evolution-in-optimization-fc96e78fa6db/) in view of Russell, II et al. (US 8109766 B2, hereinafter Russell).
As to independent claim 1, Blank teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
identifying a first individual and a second individual (“individuals are selected from the population are selected to participate in mating,” page 9 lines 1-2) such that the first simulation is within a threshold similarity of the second individual (all individuals have the same number of genes: “8-bit binary variable,” page 7 line 1);
generating a set of emergent individuals based at least in part on emergent values, wherein the emergent values are generated using values of the first and second individuals (“After having selected the parents, the recombination takes place. The crossover produces offsprings given at least two parent individuals,” page 10 lines 1-3); and
selecting a subset of the set of emergent individuals according to a diversity metric (“there is one more critical issue to consider. And this is duplicate elimination. For genetic algorithms to be efficient, it is fundamentally important to ensure diversity in the population. In order to ensure diversity, each genome shall exist at most once in the population,” page 12 lines last 5).
Blank does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the individuals are simulations and the values are hyperparameters, and comprising:
detecting a causation variable in the selected subset of emergent simulations; and
generating a predictive simulation using the causation variable.
Russell teaches a method wherein the individuals are simulations and the values are hyperparameters (“separate simulations of the same reactor core operating under different physical conditions and constraints represented by predetermined changes in independent control-variable values for selected operational control variables are conducted contemporaneously by the software system,” column 6 lines 25-29), and comprising:
detecting a causation variable in the selected subset of emergent simulations (“After all the simulation case output data is normalized, the normalized data for each independent control-variable case is characterized as a transfer function. For example, the normalized data is mapped to a set of corresponding second-order polynomials reflecting the change in a given simulator output with respect to a change in a given control variable; however, polynomials of higher or lesser orders may be used. In other words, second-order polynomials, each of which is characterized by a set of associated polynomial coefficients, are selected to fit the simulation output data obtained in a few limited number of reactor core simulations,” column 6 lines 46-56); and
generating a predictive simulation using the causation variable (“The polynomials are then utilized as ‘predictors’ to predict quantitative values of selected operational outputs (i.e., performance parameters) for each control-variable,” column 6 lines 61-64).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the individuals of Blank to comprise the simulations and key-factor-analysis of Russell. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely identifying causation variables (“The polynomials are then utilized as ‘predictors’ to predict quantitative values of selected operational outputs (i.e., performance parameters) for each control-variable,” Russell column 6 lines 61-64). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 2, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Blank/Russell further teaches a method wherein the identifying of the first simulation and the second simulation further comprises:
generating code embeddings for a plurality (“Selection” table, Blank page 9) of predictive simulations (“The polynomials are then utilized as ‘predictors’ to predict quantitative values of selected operational outputs (i.e., performance parameters) for each control-variable,” Russell column 6 lines 61-64); and
determining similarities of pairs of the plurality (all individuals have the same number of genes: “8-bit binary variable,” Blank page 7 line 1) of predictive simulations (“The polynomials are then utilized as ‘predictors’ to predict quantitative values of selected operational outputs (i.e., performance parameters) for each control-variable,” Russell column 6 lines 61-64).
As to dependent claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Blank/Russell further teaches a method wherein the generating of the set of emergent simulations comprises:
generating first generation offspring from the first and second (“individuals are selected from the population are selected to participate in mating,” Blank page 9 lines 1-2) simulations (“After all the simulation case output data is normalized, the normalized data for each independent control-variable case is characterized as a transfer function. For example, the normalized data is mapped to a set of corresponding second-order polynomials reflecting the change in a given simulator output with respect to a change in a given control variable; however, polynomials of higher or lesser orders may be used. In other words, second-order polynomials, each of which is characterized by a set of associated polynomial coefficients, are selected to fit the simulation output data obtained in a few limited number of reactor core simulations,” Russell column 6 lines 46-56); and
generating second generation offspring from the first generation offspring (“The resulting truncated population is then used for recombination in the next generation. This process is repeated until the termination criterion is met,” page 3 lines last 3).
As to dependent claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Blank/Russell further teaches a method comprising generating the emergent hyperparameters by performing a crossover operation on chromosomal representations (“After having selected the parents, the recombination takes place. The crossover produces offsprings given at least two parent individuals,” Blank page 10 lines 1-3) of the hyperparameters of the first and second simulations (“After all the simulation case output data is normalized, the normalized data for each independent control-variable case is characterized as a transfer function. For example, the normalized data is mapped to a set of corresponding second-order polynomials reflecting the change in a given simulator output with respect to a change in a given control variable; however, polynomials of higher or lesser orders may be used. In other words, second-order polynomials, each of which is characterized by a set of associated polynomial coefficients, are selected to fit the simulation output data obtained in a few limited number of reactor core simulations,” Russell column 6 lines 46-56).
As to dependent claim 7, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Blank/Russell further teaches a method comprising generating the second generation offspring by performing a crossover operation on chromosomal representations (“After having selected the parents, the recombination takes place. The crossover produces offsprings given at least two parent individuals,” Blank page 10 lines 1-3) of hyperparameters (“After all the simulation case output data is normalized, the normalized data for each independent control-variable case is characterized as a transfer function. For example, the normalized data is mapped to a set of corresponding second-order polynomials reflecting the change in a given simulator output with respect to a change in a given control variable; however, polynomials of higher or lesser orders may be used. In other words, second-order polynomials, each of which is characterized by a set of associated polynomial coefficients, are selected to fit the simulation output data obtained in a few limited number of reactor core simulations,” Russell column 6 lines 46-56) of pairs of first generation offspring (“After having selected the parents, the recombination takes place. The crossover produces offsprings given at least two parent individuals,” Blank page 10 lines 1-3).
As to dependent claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Blank/Russell further teaches a method wherein the generating of the second generation offspring further comprises introducing a random mutation into one of the chromosomal representations (“Genetic variations can arise from recombination and gene mutations. The latter principle is also transferred to genetic algorithms by applying a mutation operator on the offspring created by the crossover,” Blank page 11 lines 1-4).
As to dependent claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Blank/Russell further teaches a method wherein the first simulation and the second simulation are selected from among a plurality of predictive simulations stored in a repository (“at step 605, the coefficients for each polynomial are saved and further processing continues with the polynomial optimization and evaluation module,” Russell column 13 lines 15-18).
As to independent claim 12, Blank teaches a computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform operations (“Python,” page 1 line 1) comprising:
identifying a first individual and a second individual (“individuals are selected from the population are selected to participate in mating,” page 9 lines 1-2) such that the first simulation is within a threshold similarity of the second individual (all individuals have the same number of genes: “8-bit binary variable,” page 7 line 1);
generating a set of emergent individuals based at least in part on emergent values, wherein the emergent values are generated using values of the first and second individuals (“After having selected the parents, the recombination takes place. The crossover produces offsprings given at least two parent individuals,” page 10 lines 1-3); and
selecting a subset of the set of emergent individuals according to a diversity metric (“there is one more critical issue to consider. And this is duplicate elimination. For genetic algorithms to be efficient, it is fundamentally important to ensure diversity in the population. In order to ensure diversity, each genome shall exist at most once in the population,” page 12 lines last 5).
Blank does not appear to expressly teach a computer program product wherein the individuals are simulations and the values are hyperparameters, and comprising instructions for:
detecting a causation variable in the selected subset of emergent simulations; and
generating a predictive simulation using the causation variable.
Russell teaches a computer program product wherein the individuals are simulations and the values are hyperparameters (“separate simulations of the same reactor core operating under different physical conditions and constraints represented by predetermined changes in independent control-variable values for selected operational control variables are conducted contemporaneously by the software system,” column 6 lines 25-29), and comprising instructions for:
detecting a causation variable in the selected subset of emergent simulations (“After all the simulation case output data is normalized, the normalized data for each independent control-variable case is characterized as a transfer function. For example, the normalized data is mapped to a set of corresponding second-order polynomials reflecting the change in a given simulator output with respect to a change in a given control variable; however, polynomials of higher or lesser orders may be used. In other words, second-order polynomials, each of which is characterized by a set of associated polynomial coefficients, are selected to fit the simulation output data obtained in a few limited number of reactor core simulations,” column 6 lines 46-56); and
generating a predictive simulation using the causation variable (“The polynomials are then utilized as ‘predictors’ to predict quantitative values of selected operational outputs (i.e., performance parameters) for each control-variable,” column 6 lines 61-64).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the individuals of Blank to comprise the simulations and key-factor-analysis of Russell. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely identifying causation variables (“The polynomials are then utilized as ‘predictors’ to predict quantitative values of selected operational outputs (i.e., performance parameters) for each control-variable,” Russell column 6 lines 61-64). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Blank/Russell further teaches a computer program product wherein the stored program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device in a data processing system, and wherein the stored program instructions are transferred over a network from a remote data processing system (“and each input file is submitted to an independent reactor core simulator program or process 208-211 resident on one or more independent computers or processors 10,21 connected via the communications network 15,20. After performing a core simulation based on the values in the received input file, each simulator process returns an output data file 213-216,” Russell column 6 lines 32-38).
As to dependent claim 15, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Blank/Russell further teaches a computer program product wherein the generating of the set of emergent simulations comprises:
generating first generation offspring from the first and second (“individuals are selected from the population are selected to participate in mating,” Blank page 9 lines 1-2) simulations (“After all the simulation case output data is normalized, the normalized data for each independent control-variable case is characterized as a transfer function. For example, the normalized data is mapped to a set of corresponding second-order polynomials reflecting the change in a given simulator output with respect to a change in a given control variable; however, polynomials of higher or lesser orders may be used. In other words, second-order polynomials, each of which is characterized by a set of associated polynomial coefficients, are selected to fit the simulation output data obtained in a few limited number of reactor core simulations,” Russell column 6 lines 46-56); and
generating second generation offspring from the first generation offspring (“The resulting truncated population is then used for recombination in the next generation. This process is repeated until the termination criterion is met,” page 3 lines last 3).
As to dependent claim 16, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. Blank/Russell further teaches a computer program product comprising generating the emergent hyperparameters by performing a crossover operation on chromosomal representations (“After having selected the parents, the recombination takes place. The crossover produces offsprings given at least two parent individuals,” Blank page 10 lines 1-3) of the hyperparameters of the first and second simulations (“After all the simulation case output data is normalized, the normalized data for each independent control-variable case is characterized as a transfer function. For example, the normalized data is mapped to a set of corresponding second-order polynomials reflecting the change in a given simulator output with respect to a change in a given control variable; however, polynomials of higher or lesser orders may be used. In other words, second-order polynomials, each of which is characterized by a set of associated polynomial coefficients, are selected to fit the simulation output data obtained in a few limited number of reactor core simulations,” Russell column 6 lines 46-56).
As to dependent claim 17, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. Blank/Russell further teaches a computer program product comprising generating the second generation offspring by performing a crossover operation on chromosomal representations (“After having selected the parents, the recombination takes place. The crossover produces offsprings given at least two parent individuals,” Blank page 10 lines 1-3) of hyperparameters (“After all the simulation case output data is normalized, the normalized data for each independent control-variable case is characterized as a transfer function. For example, the normalized data is mapped to a set of corresponding second-order polynomials reflecting the change in a given simulator output with respect to a change in a given control variable; however, polynomials of higher or lesser orders may be used. In other words, second-order polynomials, each of which is characterized by a set of associated polynomial coefficients, are selected to fit the simulation output data obtained in a few limited number of reactor core simulations,” Russell column 6 lines 46-56) of pairs of first generation offspring (“After having selected the parents, the recombination takes place. The crossover produces offsprings given at least two parent individuals,” Blank page 10 lines 1-3).
As to independent claim 18, Blank teaches a computer system comprising a processor and one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable by the processor to cause the processor to perform operations (“Python,” page 1 line 1) comprising:
identifying a first individual and a second individual (“individuals are selected from the population are selected to participate in mating,” page 9 lines 1-2) such that the first simulation is within a threshold similarity of the second individual (all individuals have the same number of genes: “8-bit binary variable,” page 7 line 1);
generating a set of emergent individuals based at least in part on emergent values, wherein the emergent values are generated using values of the first and second individuals (“After having selected the parents, the recombination takes place. The crossover produces offsprings given at least two parent individuals,” page 10 lines 1-3); and
selecting a subset of the set of emergent individuals according to a diversity metric (“there is one more critical issue to consider. And this is duplicate elimination. For genetic algorithms to be efficient, it is fundamentally important to ensure diversity in the population. In order to ensure diversity, each genome shall exist at most once in the population,” page 12 lines last 5).
Blank does not appear to expressly teach a computer system wherein the individuals are simulations and the values are hyperparameters, and comprising instructions for:
detecting a causation variable in the selected subset of emergent simulations; and
generating a predictive simulation using the causation variable.
Russell teaches a computer system wherein the individuals are simulations and the values are hyperparameters (“separate simulations of the same reactor core operating under different physical conditions and constraints represented by predetermined changes in independent control-variable values for selected operational control variables are conducted contemporaneously by the software system,” column 6 lines 25-29), and comprising instructions for:
detecting a causation variable in the selected subset of emergent simulations (“After all the simulation case output data is normalized, the normalized data for each independent control-variable case is characterized as a transfer function. For example, the normalized data is mapped to a set of corresponding second-order polynomials reflecting the change in a given simulator output with respect to a change in a given control variable; however, polynomials of higher or lesser orders may be used. In other words, second-order polynomials, each of which is characterized by a set of associated polynomial coefficients, are selected to fit the simulation output data obtained in a few limited number of reactor core simulations,” column 6 lines 46-56); and
generating a predictive simulation using the causation variable (“The polynomials are then utilized as ‘predictors’ to predict quantitative values of selected operational outputs (i.e., performance parameters) for each control-variable,” column 6 lines 61-64).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the individuals of Blank to comprise the simulations and key-factor-analysis of Russell. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely identifying causation variables (“The polynomials are then utilized as ‘predictors’ to predict quantitative values of selected operational outputs (i.e., performance parameters) for each control-variable,” Russell column 6 lines 61-64). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 19, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated. Blank/Russell further teaches a computer system wherein the generating of the set of emergent simulations comprises:
generating first generation offspring from the first and second (“individuals are selected from the population are selected to participate in mating,” Blank page 9 lines 1-2) simulations (“After all the simulation case output data is normalized, the normalized data for each independent control-variable case is characterized as a transfer function. For example, the normalized data is mapped to a set of corresponding second-order polynomials reflecting the change in a given simulator output with respect to a change in a given control variable; however, polynomials of higher or lesser orders may be used. In other words, second-order polynomials, each of which is characterized by a set of associated polynomial coefficients, are selected to fit the simulation output data obtained in a few limited number of reactor core simulations,” Russell column 6 lines 46-56); and
generating second generation offspring from the first generation offspring (“The resulting truncated population is then used for recombination in the next generation. This process is repeated until the termination criterion is met,” page 3 lines last 3).
As to dependent claim 20, the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated. Blank/Russell further teaches a computer system comprising generating the emergent hyperparameters by performing a crossover operation on chromosomal representations (“After having selected the parents, the recombination takes place. The crossover produces offsprings given at least two parent individuals,” Blank page 10 lines 1-3) of the hyperparameters of the first and second simulations (“After all the simulation case output data is normalized, the normalized data for each independent control-variable case is characterized as a transfer function. For example, the normalized data is mapped to a set of corresponding second-order polynomials reflecting the change in a given simulator output with respect to a change in a given control variable; however, polynomials of higher or lesser orders may be used. In other words, second-order polynomials, each of which is characterized by a set of associated polynomial coefficients, are selected to fit the simulation output data obtained in a few limited number of reactor core simulations,” Russell column 6 lines 46-56).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Blank in view of Russell and Baughman et al. (US 2024/0086729 A1, hereinafter Baughman).
As to dependent claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Blank/Russell further teaches a method comprising generating code embeddings for the plurality (“Selection” table, Blank page 9) of predictive simulations (“The polynomials are then utilized as ‘predictors’ to predict quantitative values of selected operational outputs (i.e., performance parameters) for each control-variable,” Russell column 6 lines 61-64).
Blank/Russell does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the generating of the code embeddings comprises encoding source code and code comments.
Baughman teaches a method wherein the generating of the code embeddings comprises encoding source code and code comments (“As an example, referring to FIG. 9, a method 900 of semantic interpretation can provide a word embedding model for each trustworthy AI factor being considered as part of an overall trust score. As illustrated, operation 902 can obtain source code for an AI model (e.g., from a source code repository) and provide the source code to operation 904, which extracts comments embedded in the source code. The comments can be programmer-readable explanations or annotations in the source code, which can be added to the source code with the purpose of making the source code easier for programmers (and others) to understand, and which are generally ignored by compilers and interpreters. Operation 906 inputs the comments (e.g., terms) to a word embedding model,” paragraph 0055 lines 1-14).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the code embeddings of Blank/Russell to comprise the source code and code comments of Baughman. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely embeddings source code and code comments (“As an example, referring to FIG. 9, a method 900 of semantic interpretation can provide a word embedding model for each trustworthy AI factor being considered as part of an overall trust score. As illustrated, operation 902 can obtain source code for an AI model (e.g., from a source code repository) and provide the source code to operation 904, which extracts comments embedded in the source code. The comments can be programmer-readable explanations or annotations in the source code, which can be added to the source code with the purpose of making the source code easier for programmers (and others) to understand, and which are generally ignored by compilers and interpreters. Operation 906 inputs the comments (e.g., terms) to a word embedding model,” Baughman paragraph 0055 lines 1-14). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Blank in view of Russell and Cohen et al. (US 2021/0027083 A1, hereinafter Cohen).
As to dependent claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Blank/Russell further teaches a method comprising determining of the similarities of pairs of the plurality of predictive simulations based at least in part on the code embeddings (all individuals have the same number of genes: “8-bit binary variable,” Blank page 7 line 1).
Blank/Russell does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the determining of the similarities comprises using a feed forward neural network to determine the similarities based at least in part on the embeddings.
Cohen teaches a method wherein the determining of the similarities comprises using a feed forward neural network to determine the similarities based at least in part on the embeddings (“the concept embedding neural network can use a cosine similarly loss to compare the image embedding e and the topic embedding t,” paragraph 0135 lines 9-11).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the similarity determination of Blank/Russell to comprise the neural network of Cohen. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely determining similarities with a neural network (“the concept embedding neural network can use a cosine similarly loss to compare the image embedding e and the topic embedding t,” Cohen paragraph 0135 lines 9-11). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Blank in view of Russell and Schuetz et al. (US 12632766 B1, hereinafter Schuetz).
As to dependent claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Blank/Russell further teaches a method comprising selecting a subset of the set of emergent simulations (“there is one more critical issue to consider. And this is duplicate elimination. For genetic algorithms to be efficient, it is fundamentally important to ensure diversity in the population. In order to ensure diversity, each genome shall exist at most once in the population,” Blank page 12 lines last 5).
Blank/Russell does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the selecting comprises using a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization algorithm that identifies the subset as providing optimal diversity.
Schuetz teaches a method wherein the selecting comprises using a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization algorithm that identifies the subset as providing optimal diversity (“the risk diversification strategy outlined above can then be cast as an optimization problem in Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO) (or equivalently, Ising) form. Specifically, one may construct a Hamiltonian that counts the number of marked (colored) vertices and adds a penalty to non-independent configurations (e.g., when two vertices in the set are connected by an edge),” column 6 lines 41-48).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the selecting of Blank/Russell to comprise the quadratic unconstrained binary optimization algorithm of Schuetz. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely providing optimal diversity (“the risk diversification strategy outlined above can then be cast as an optimization problem in Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO) (or equivalently, Ising) form. Specifically, one may construct a Hamiltonian that counts the number of marked (colored) vertices and adds a penalty to non-independent configurations (e.g., when two vertices in the set are connected by an edge),” Schuetz column 6 lines 41-48). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Blank in view of Russell and Kalantari et al. (US 2023/0126226 A1, hereinafter Kalantari).
As to dependent claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Blank/Russell does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the detecting of the causation variable comprises detecting a variable having invariance across the subset of emergent simulations.
Kalantari teaches a method wherein the detecting of the causation variable comprises detecting a variable having invariance across the subset of emergent simulations (“Zc can capture causal variables that are invariant across environments,” paragraph 0079 lines 7-9).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detecting of the causation variable of Blank/Russell to comprise the detecting a variable having invariance of Kalantari. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely detecting a variable having invariance (“Zc can capture causal variables that are invariant across environments,” Kalantari paragraph 0079 lines 7-9). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Blank in view of Russell and Halliday et al. (US 2002/0083003 A1, hereinafter Halliday).
As to dependent claim 14, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated.
Blank/Russell does not appear to expressly teach a computer program product wherein the stored program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device in a server data processing system, and wherein the stored program instructions are downloaded in response to a request over a network to a remote data processing system for use in a computer readable storage device associated with the remote data processing system, further comprising:
program instructions to meter use of the program instructions associated with the request; and
program instructions to generate an invoice based on the metered use.
Halliday teaches a computer program product wherein the stored program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device in a server data processing system, and wherein the stored program instructions are downloaded in response to a request over a network to a remote data processing system for use in a computer readable storage device associated with the remote data processing system (“ In FIG. 2, an important part of the present invention is illustrated; namely, the architecture of the application package that will be received by a user when he downloads a particular client application 2A. The client library 2C is known to those skilled in the art as a software library that is linked to client application 2A with an Application Programming Interface (API) 2B. The client application 2A has built into it a reporting function that will report to the library 2C all usage of features included or implemented in the client application. The library is responsible for reporting, via an appropriate communication utility COMS 2D, such usage to the metering monitor 4A as is described in more detail below,” paragraph 0062 lines 1-13), further comprising:
program instructions to meter use of the program instructions associated with the request (“performing real-time metering and retroactive billing for software application usage,” paragraph 0020 lines 2-4); and
program instructions to generate an invoice based on the metered use (“performing real-time metering and retroactive billing for software application usage,” paragraph 0020 lines 2-4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the request of Blank/Russell to comprise the metering of Halliday. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely generating an invoice based on metered use (“performing real-time metering and retroactive billing for software application usage,” Halliday paragraph 0020 lines 2-4). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Yegenoglu et al. (“Exploring Parameter and Hyper-Parameter Spaces of Neuroscience Models on High Performance Computers With Learning to Learn,” 2022 May 27, https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2022.885207, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9199579/) disclosing hyperparameters of emergent simulations and genetic algorithms
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e-mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan Barrett whose telephone number is 571 270 3311. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am to 5:30pm.
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 Michelle Bechtold can be reached at 571 431 0762. 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.
/Ryan Barrett/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148
Prosecution Insights