DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Response filed 27 July 2026 for application 18/176,106 filed 28 February 2023.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 9-11, 14, 17, 19-20 is/are currently amended.
Claim(s) 5, 8, 15, 18 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, 16-17, 19-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, 16-17, 19-20 is/are rejected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 27 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, 16-17, 19-20 have been fully considered and, in light of the amendments to the claims, are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, 16-17, 19-20 has/have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the claims are based on the newly amended subject matter. All arguments are addressed in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the claims below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, 16-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea, and because the claim elements, whether considered individually or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., 573 US 208 (2014).
Regarding claim 1, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method.
The limitation of aggregating the federated variance data received from the plurality of edge nodes at the central node, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses mathematically combining data.
The limitation of determining, from the aggregated federated variance data, a global variance for each of the multiple feature splits without receiving, at the central node, samples maintained at the plurality of edge nodes, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating a global variance.
The limitation of selecting a feature split with a lowest global variance from among the global variances, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of ... constructs additional corresponding nodes of the decision tree by performing additional feature splits using the selected feature split until the decision tree is completed at each of the plurality of edge nodes, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – central node, plurality of edge nodes. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – decision tree. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites receiving, at a central node, federated variance data for each of multiple feature splits performed at each of a plurality of edge nodes, wherein each of the plurality of edge nodes performs the same feature splits using local data maintained at the respective edge node, wherein the multiple feature splits are feature splits of a decision tree in each edge node; transmitting the selected feature split to the plurality of edge nodes ..., which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim recites wherein the federated variance data of each feature split comprises a local cardinality representing a number of the samples in each feature split, a local sum of values of the samples in each feature split, and a local sum of squares of the samples in each feature split; wherein the decision tree constructed at each of the plurality of edge nodes includes the selected feature split at a corresponding node of the decision tree, wherein the completed decision tree at each of the plurality of edge nodes is identical without transmitting local samples among the plurality of edge nodes or to the central node which is simply additional information regarding the data and the decision tree, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
central node, plurality of edge nodes amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2016.05(d))
decision tree amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the data and the decision tree do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method.
The limitation of generating the federated variance data at each of the edge nodes, wherein each of the edge nodes generates the federated variance data based on their own local data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 2 is applicable here since claim 3 carries out the method of claim 2 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the local data of the edges nodes is not shared with other edge nodes or with a central node.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the edge nodes and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the edge nodes do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 2 is applicable here since claim 4 carries out the method of claim 2 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein each of the edge nodes generates the federated variance data for each of multiple feature splits, wherein the multiple feature splits are the same at each of the edge nodes.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the edge nodes and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the edge nodes do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method.
The limitation of aggregating the federated variance data at the central node, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 7 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the lowest global variance represents a best purity for the feature split.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the global variance data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the global variance data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 9 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the decision trees at each of the plurality of nodes constitute a random forest regressor.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the decision trees at each of the plurality of nodes constitute a random forest regressor which is simply additional information regarding the decision trees, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – random forest regressor. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
random forest regressor amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the decision trees do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 10 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of sharing values for constructing each of the feature splits for all features.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites sharing values for constructing each of the feature splits for all features, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a storage medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) storage medium.
The limitation of aggregating the federated variance data received from the plurality of edge nodes at the central node, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses mathematically combining data.
The limitation of determining, from the aggregated federated variance data, a global variance for each of the multiple feature splits without receiving, at the central node, samples maintained at the plurality of edge nodes, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating a global variance.
The limitation of selecting a feature split with a lowest global variance from among the global variances, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of ... constructs additional corresponding nodes of the decision tree by performing additional feature splits using the selected feature split until the decision tree is completed at each of the plurality of edge nodes, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – storage medium, instructions, one or more hardware processors, central node, plurality of edge nodes. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – decision tree. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites receiving, at a central node, federated variance data for each of multiple feature splits performed at each of a plurality of edge nodes, wherein each of the plurality of edge nodes performs the same feature splits using local data maintained at the respective edge node, wherein the multiple feature splits are feature splits of a decision tree in each edge node; transmitting the selected feature split to the plurality of edge nodes ..., which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim recites wherein the federated variance data of each feature split comprises a local cardinality representing a number of the samples in each feature split, a local sum of values of the samples in each feature split, and a local sum of squares of the samples in each feature split; wherein the decision tree constructed at each of the plurality of edge nodes includes the selected feature split at a corresponding node of the decision tree, wherein the completed decision tree at each of the plurality of edge nodes is identical without transmitting local samples among the plurality of edge nodes or to the central node which is simply additional information regarding the data and the decision tree, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
storage medium, instructions, one or more hardware processors, central node, plurality of edge nodes amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2016.05(d))
decision tree amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the data and the decision tree do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a storage medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) storage medium.
The limitation of generating the federated variance data at each of the edge nodes, wherein each of the edge nodes generates the federated variance data based on their own local data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a storage medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) storage medium. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 12 is applicable here since claim 13 carries out the storage medium of claim 12 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the local data of the edges nodes is not shared with other edge nodes or with a central node.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the edge nodes and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the edge nodes do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a storage medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) storage medium. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 12 is applicable here since claim 14 carries out the storage medium of claim 12 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein each of the edge nodes generates the federated variance data for each of multiple feature splits, wherein the multiple feature splits are the same at each of the edge nodes.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the edge nodes and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the edge nodes do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a storage medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) storage medium.
The limitation of aggregating the federated variance data at the central node, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to a storage medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) storage medium. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 11 is applicable here since claim 17 carries out the storage medium of claim 11 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the lowest global variance represents a best purity for the feature split.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the global variance data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the global variance data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to a storage medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) storage medium. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 11 is applicable here since claim 19 carries out the storage medium of claim 11 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the decision trees at each of the plurality of nodes constitute a random forest regressor.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the decision trees at each of the plurality of nodes constitute a random forest regressor which is simply additional information regarding the decision trees, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – random forest regressor. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
random forest regressor amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the decision trees do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 20 is directed to a storage medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) storage medium. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 11 is applicable here since claim 20 carries out the storage medium of claim 11 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of sharing values for constructing each of the feature splits for all features.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites sharing values for constructing each of the feature splits for all features, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 10-14, 16-17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 2022/0230071 A1 – Method and Device for Constructing Decision Tree, hereinafter referred to as “Liu”).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Liu teaches a method comprising:
receiving, at a central node, federated variance data for each of multiple feature splits performed at each of a plurality of edge nodes (Liu, [0061]-[0062] – teaches each client sending statistical data, including variance data for a feature, for the local data of the client to a control node; see also Liu, [0051] – perform the step for each attribute to create nodes of a decision tree), wherein each of the plurality of edge nodes performs the same feature splits using local data maintained at the respective edge node (Liu, [0061]-[0062] – teaches sending statistical data, including variance data for a feature, for the local data of the client to a control node),
wherein the multiple feature splits are feature splits of a decision tree in each edge node (Liu, [0051] – teaches each split point generated from the statistical data creates a node of a decision tree),
aggregating the federated variance data received from the plurality of edge nodes at the central node (Liu, [0065] – teaches determining a global variance based on the aggregated variance data received from the client devices; see also Liu, [0068]);
wherein the federated variance data of each feature split comprises a local cardinality representing a number of the samples in each feature split, a local sum of values of the samples in each feature split, and a local sum of squares of the samples in each feature split (Liu, [0062] – teaches statistical information of the number of tags and the proportions for the tags [Proportions of the tags include sum and sum of squares as one is simply the square of the other]);
determining, from the aggregated federated variance data, a global variance for each of the multiple feature splits (Liu, [0065] – teaches determining a global variance based on the aggregated variance data received from the client devices; see also Liu, [0068]) without receiving, at the central node, samples maintained at the plurality of edge nodes (Liu, [0050] – teaches the local clients do not share the respective local data);
selecting a feature split with a lowest global variance from among the global variances (Liu, [0067]-[0072] – teaches selecting the split with the lowest impurity);
transmitting the selected feature split to the plurality of edge nodes (Liu, [0074] – teaches sending split point information from the control node to each of the clients), wherein each of the plurality of edge nodes constructs additional corresponding nodes of the decision tree by performing additional feature splits using the selected feature split until the decision tree is completed at each of the plurality of edge nodes (Liu, [0074] – teaches sending split point information from the control node to each of the clients); and
wherein the decision tree constructed at each of the plurality of edge nodes includes the selected feature split at a corresponding node of the decision tree (Liu, [0074] – teaches sending split point information from the control node to each of the clients),
wherein the completed decision tree at each of the plurality of edge nodes is identical (Liu, [0074] – teaches sending split point information from the control node to each of the clients) without transmitting local samples among the plurality of edge nodes or to the central node (Liu, [0050] – teaches the local clients do not share the respective local data).
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Liu teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Liu further teaches generating the federated variance data at each of the edge nodes, wherein each of the edge nodes generates the federated variance data based on their own local data (Liu, [0061]-[0062] – teaches sending statistical data, including variance data for a feature, for the local data of the client to a control node).
Regarding claim 3 (Original), Liu teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 2 as noted above. Liu further teaches wherein the local data of the edges nodes is not shared with other edge nodes or with a central node (Liu, [0050] – teaches the local clients do not share the respective local data).
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), Liu teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 2 as noted above. Liu further teaches wherein each of the edge nodes generates the federated variance data for each of multiple feature splits (Liu, [0061]-[0062] – teaches each client sending statistical data, including variance data for a feature, for the local data of the client to a control node; see also Liu, [0051] – perform the step for each attribute to create nodes of a decision tree; see also Liu, [0074] – repeating steps for each split point), and wherein the multiple feature splits are the same at each of the edge nodes (Liu, [0050] – teaches horizontal federated learning where the features are the same for each client; Liu, [0074] – teaches sending split point information from the control node to each of the clients; see also Liu, [0051]).
Regarding claim 6 (Original), Liu teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Liu further teaches aggregating the federated variance data at the central node (Liu, [0065] – teaches determining a global variance based on the aggregated variance data received from the client devices; see also Liu, [0068]).
Regarding claim 7 (Currently Amended), Liu teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Liu further teaches wherein the lowest global variance represents a best purity for the feature split (, [0067]-[0072] – teaches that the lowest global variance teaches the least impurity [best purity] for a split).
Regarding claim 10 (Currently Amended), Liu teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Liu further teaches sharing values for constructing each of the feature splits for all features (Liu, [0051] – teaches each split point generated from the statistical data creates a node of a decision tree; Liu, [0074] – teaches sending split point information from the control node to each of the clients).
Regarding claim 11 (Currently Amended), it is the storage medium embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1. Liu further teaches a non-transitory storage medium having stored therein instructions that are executable by one or more hardware processors to perform operations comprising (Liu, [0112] – teaches a processor executing instructions stored in memory) …
Regarding claim 12 (Previously Presented), the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Liu for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 13 (Original), the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Liu for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 14 (Currently Amended), the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Liu for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 16 (Previously Presented), the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Liu for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 17 (Currently Amended), the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Liu for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 20 (Currently Amended), the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Liu for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 10.
Claim(s) 9, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Pothula et al. (US 2021/0174257 A1 – Federated Machine-Learning Platform Leveraging Engineered Features Based on Statistical Tests, hereinafter referred to as “Pothula”).
Regarding claim 9 (Currently Amended), Liu teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. However, Liu does not explicitly teach wherein the multiple decision trees at each of the plurality of edge nodes constitute a random forest regressor.
Pothula teaches wherein the multiple decision trees at each of the plurality of edge nodes constitute a random forest regressor (Pothula, [0042] – teaches that the machine learning models at the nodes can be gradient boosted regression trees).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu with the teachings of Pothula in order to reduce complexity and improve performance in the field of horizontal federated learning (Pothula, [0078] – “In some embodiments, an integrated modeling amongst multiple entities may be used to facilitate additional improvements with reduced complexity that improve performance post original design. The pillars may have OQM analysis features, such as feature importance, incremental contribution, Shapley information (like Shapley values, or other measures of network centrality), Gini impurity, entropy, population stability index (PSI), characteristics stability index (CSI), information value (IV), and cross-entropy.”).
Regarding claim 19 (Currently Amended), the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Liu in view of Pothula for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to MARSHALL WERNER whose telephone number is (469) 295-9143. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamran Afshar, can be reached at (571) 272-7796. The fax 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.
/MARSHALL L WERNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights