DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is a first Office Action on the merits of the application. Claims 1 - 25 are presented for examination. Claims 1 -25 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 .
Specification Objection
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0056] recites “if we input values for A2 and A3 into fc, will fc return a value for variable A1 that closely matches the actual value of A1, which is represented as true-A1”, but it is recommended the phrase “will fc return a value” is amended to recite “fc will return a value”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 22 recites “A programmable computer comprising a processor system operatable to perform processor system operations comprising” in the preamble, but it is recommended the preamble is amended to recite “A programmable computer comprising a processor
Claims 3, 11, 17, 22, and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3, line 2 - 3, claim 11, line 5, claim 17, line 5, claim 22, line 18, and claim 24, line 20 recites “candidate functions that can be represented in the mathematical expression domain”, but it is recommended the phrase recites “candidate functions represented in the mathematical expression domain”, to positively recite the candidate functions are represented in the mathematical expression domain. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10, 16, 22, and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10, line 8, 16, line 10, claim 22, line 8, and claim 24, line 10 recite “Existing”, but it is recommended the term recites “existing”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16 - 21, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 16 - 21, 24 and 25 are directed to a computer program product comprising a computer readable program stored on a computer readable storage medium. Based on the language of the claim, the claim is directed to a computer readable program, and the computer readable program is interpreted as software per se and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1 - 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1, applying step 1, the preamble of claim 1 claims a method so this claim falls within the statutory category of a process.
In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 1 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
The claim recites:
A programmable computer comprising a processor system operable to perform processor system operations comprising:
representing a set of candidate functions in a mathematical expression domain, wherein the set of candidate functions define relationships between data of an existing system;
representing a set of known background theory in the mathematical expression domain, wherein the set of known background theory define known relationships associated with the existing system; and
performing a model composition operation comprising analyzing, in the mathematical expression domain, the set of candidate functions and the set of known background theory to generate a composed model that satisfies a target data fidelity in a manner that also satisfies a predetermined level of compatibility between the composed model and the set of known background theory.
Under Step 2A, prong one, the limitations of “performing a model composition operation comprising analyzing, in the mathematical expression domain, the set of candidate functions and the set of known background theory to generate a composed model that satisfies a target data fidelity in a manner that also satisfies a predetermined level of compatibility between the composed model and the set of known background theory” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process. The limitation, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, but for the recitation of computer components or a generic computer. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a person could mentally provide an evaluation and judgement of composing or creating a model using potential functions for the model and a combination of known formulas (background theory) to see if the results provide a fidelity that also provides a compatibility between the known formulas and the model composed.
Under Step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites “representing a set of candidate functions in a mathematical expression domain, wherein the set of candidate functions define relationships between data of an existing system” and “representing a set of known background theory in the mathematical expression domain, wherein the set of known background theory define known relationships associated with the existing system”, which, as disclosed in the 112 section, is interpreted as receiving or retrieving information.
These additional limitations must be considered individually and with the claim as a whole to determine if it integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
These additional limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity because they are insignificant applications. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g). Simply providing candidate functions and a set of known background theory does not add meaningful limitations to the claim.
The claim as a whole, is linked to composing a model using possible functions and a set of known formulas (background theory), but there are no particular physical elements or steps in the claim that add a meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a physical process. Thus, the claim as a whole does not provide a practical application for the judicial exception.
Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The limitations that were determined extra-solution activity will require further analysis.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered to be mere data gathering. Providing candidate functions and a set of known background theory to perform the judicial exception are merely steps of data gathering, without additional steps that would make the features meaningful limitations to the claims.
Looking at the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 1 does not amount to significantly more.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With respect to claim 10, applying step 1, the preamble of claim 10 claims a method so this claim falls within the statutory category of a process.
In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 10 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
The claim recites:
A computer-implemented method operable to use a processor system to perform processor system operations comprising:
representing a set of candidate functions in a mathematical expression domain, wherein the set of candidate functions define relationships between data of an existing system;
representing a set of known background theory in the mathematical expression domain, wherein the set of known background theory define known relationships associated with the Existing system; and
performing a model composition operation comprising analyzing, in the mathematical expression domain, the set of candidate functions and the set of known background theory to generate a composed model that satisfies a target data fidelity in a manner that also satisfies a predetermined level of compatibility between the composed model and the set of known background theory.
Under Step 2A, prong one, the limitations of “performing a model composition operation comprising analyzing, in the mathematical expression domain, the set of candidate functions and the set of known background theory to generate a composed model that satisfies a target data fidelity in a manner that also satisfies a predetermined level of compatibility between the composed model and the set of known background theory” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process. The limitation, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, but for the recitation of computer components or a generic computer. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a person could mentally provide an evaluation and judgement of composing or creating a model using potential functions for the model and a combination of known formulas (background theory) to see if the results provide a fidelity that also provides a compatibility between the known formulas and the model composed.
Under Step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites “representing a set of candidate functions in a mathematical expression domain, wherein the set of candidate functions define relationships between data of an existing system” and “representing a set of known background theory in the mathematical expression domain, wherein the set of known background theory define known relationships associated with the Existing system”, which, as disclosed in the 112 section, is interpreted as receiving or retrieving information.
These additional limitations must be considered individually and with the claim as a whole to determine if it integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
These additional limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity because they are insignificant applications. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g). Simply providing candidate functions and a set of known background theory does not add meaningful limitations to the claim.
The claim as a whole, is linked to composing a model using possible functions and a set of known formulas (background theory), but there are no particular physical elements or steps in the claim that add a meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a physical process. Thus, the claim as a whole does not provide a practical application for the judicial exception.
Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The limitations that were determined extra-solution activity will require further analysis.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered to be mere data gathering. Providing candidate functions and a set of known background theory to perform the judicial exception are merely steps of data gathering, without additional steps that would make the features meaningful limitations to the claims.
Looking at the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 10 does not amount to significantly more.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With respect to claim 16, applying step 1, the preamble of claim 16 claims a method so this claim falls within the statutory category of a process.
In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 16 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
The claim recites:
A computer program product comprising a computer readable program stored on a computer readable storage medium, wherein the computer readable program, when executed on a processor system, causes the processor system to perform processor operations comprising:
representing a set of candidate functions in a mathematical expression domain, wherein the set of candidate functions define relationships between data of an existing system;
representing a set of known background theory in the mathematical expression domain, wherein the set of known background theory define known relationships associated with the Existing system; and
performing a model composition operation comprising analyzing, in the mathematical expression domain, the set of candidate functions and the set of known background theory to generate a composed model that satisfies a target data fidelity in a manner that also satisfies a predetermined level of compatibility between the composed model and the set of known background theory.
Under Step 2A, prong one, the limitations of “performing a model composition operation comprising analyzing, in the mathematical expression domain, the set of candidate functions and the set of known background theory to generate a composed model that satisfies a target data fidelity in a manner that also satisfies a predetermined level of compatibility between the composed model and the set of known background theory” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process. The limitation, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, but for the recitation of computer components or a generic computer. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a person could mentally provide an evaluation and judgement of composing or creating a model using potential functions for the model and a combination of known formulas (background theory) to see if the results provide a fidelity that also provides a compatibility between the known formulas and the model composed.
Under Step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites “representing a set of candidate functions in a mathematical expression domain, wherein the set of candidate functions define relationships between data of an existing system” and “representing a set of known background theory in the mathematical expression domain, wherein the set of known background theory define known relationships associated with the Existing system”, which, as disclosed in the 112 section, is interpreted as receiving or retrieving information.
These additional limitations must be considered individually and with the claim as a whole to determine if it integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
These additional limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity because they are insignificant applications. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g). Simply providing candidate functions and a set of known background theory does not add meaningful limitations to the claim.
The claim as a whole, is linked to composing a model using possible functions and a set of known formulas (background theory), but there are no particular physical elements or steps in the claim that add a meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a physical process. Thus, the claim as a whole does not provide a practical application for the judicial exception.
Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The limitations that were determined extra-solution activity will require further analysis.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered to be mere data gathering. Providing candidate functions and a set of known background theory to perform the judicial exception are merely steps of data gathering, without additional steps that would make the features meaningful limitations to the claims.
Looking at the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 16 does not amount to significantly more.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With respect to claim 22, applying step 1, the preamble of claim 22 claims a method so this claim falls within the statutory category of a process.
In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 22 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
The claim recites:
A programmable computer comprising a processor system operable to perform processor system operations comprising:
representing a set of candidate functions in a mathematical expression domain, wherein the set of candidate functions define relationships between data of an existing system;
representing a set of known background theory in the mathematical expression domain, wherein the set of known background theory define known relationships associated with the Existing system; and
performing a model composition operation comprising analyzing, in the mathematical expression domain, the set of candidate functions and the set of known background theory to generate a composed model that satisfies a target data fidelity in a manner that also satisfies:
a predetermined level of compatibility between the composed model and the set of known background theory; and
a target complexity level of the composed model;
wherein the mathematical expression domain is selected based at least in part on an expressive capability of the mathematical expression domain that comprises a breadth of the candidate functions that can be represented in the mathematical expression domain;
wherein the mathematical expression domain comprises a polynomial mathematical expression;
wherein performing the model composition operation further comprises analyzing, in the mathematical expression domain, the set of candidate functions and the set of background theory to generate the composed model in a manner that applies:
a first weighted user preference to the target data fidelity;
a second weighted user preference to the predetermined level of compatibility between the composed model and the set of known background theory; and
a target complexity level of the composed model.
Under Step 2A, prong one, the limitations of “performing a model composition operation comprising analyzing, in the mathematical expression domain, the set of candidate functions and the set of known background theory to generate a composed model that satisfies a target data fidelity in a manner that also satisfies: a predetermined level of compatibility between the composed model and the set of known background theory, and a target complexity level of the composed model” and “wherein performing the model composition operation further comprises analyzing, in the mathematical expression domain, the set of candidate functions and the set of background theory to generate the composed model in a manner that applies: a first weighted user preference to the target data fidelity, a second weighted user preference to the predetermined level of compatibility between the composed model and the set of known background theory; and a target complexity level of the composed model” are abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process. The limitation, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, but for the recitation of computer components or a generic computer. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a person could mentally provide an evaluation and judgement of composing or creating a model using potential functions for the model and a combination of known formulas (background theory), to see if the results provide a fidelity that also provides a compatibility between the known formulas and the model composed, along with providing an opinion of their preference for the fidelity and compatibility.
Under Step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites “representing a set of candidate functions in a mathematical expression domain, wherein the set of candidate functions define relationships between data of an existing system” and “representing a set of known background theory in the mathematical expression domain, wherein the set of known background theory define known relationships associated with the Existing system”, which, as disclosed in the 112 section, is interpreted as receiving or retrieving information.
In addition, the claim recites “wherein the mathematical expression domain is selected based at least in part on an expressive capability of the mathematical expression domain that comprises a breadth of the candidate functions that can be represented in the mathematical expression domain, wherein the mathematical expression domain comprises a polynomial mathematical expression”, which are providing descriptions of the mathematical expression domain, without adding meaningful limitations to the claim.
These additional limitations must be considered individually and with the claim as a whole to determine if it integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
These additional limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity because they are insignificant applications. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g). Simply providing candidate functions and a set of known background theory and providing a description of the judicial exception does not add meaningful limitations to the claim.
The claim as a whole, is linked to composing a model using possible functions and a set of known formulas (background theory), but there are no particular physical elements or steps in the claim that add a meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a physical process. Thus, the claim as a whole does not provide a practical application for the judicial exception.
Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The limitations that were determined extra-solution activity will require further analysis.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered to be mere data gathering. Providing candidate functions and a set of known background theory to perform the judicial exception are merely steps of data gathering, without additional steps that would make the features meaningful limitations to the claims.
Looking at the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 22 does not amount to significantly more.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 22 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With respect to claim 24, applying step 1, the preamble of claim 24 claims a method so this claim falls within the statutory category of a process.
In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 24 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
The claim recites:
A computer program product comprising a computer readable program stored on a computer readable storage medium, wherein the computer readable program, when executed on a processor system, causes the processor system to perform processor operations comprising:
representing a set of candidate functions in a mathematical expression domain, wherein the set of candidate functions define relationships between data of an existing system;
representing a set of known background theory in the mathematical expression domain, wherein the set of known background theory define known relationships associated with the Existing system; and
performing a model composition operation comprising analyzing, in the mathematical expression domain, the set of candidate functions and the set of known background theory to generate a composed model that satisfies a target data fidelity in a manner that also satisfies:
a predetermined level of compatibility between the composed model and the set of known background theory; and
a target complexity level of the composed model;
wherein the mathematical expression domain is selected based at least in part on an expressive capability of the mathematical expression domain that comprises a breadth of the candidate functions that can be represented in the mathematical expression domain;
wherein the mathematical expression domain comprises a polynomial mathematical expression; and
wherein performing the model composition operation further comprises analyzing, in the mathematical expression domain, the set of candidate functions and the set of background theory to generate the composed model in a manner that applies:
a first weighted user preference to the target data fidelity;
a second weighted user preference to the predetermined level of compatibility between the composed model and the set of known background theory; and
a target complexity level of the composed model.
Under Step 2A, prong one, the limitations of “performing a model composition operation comprising analyzing, in the mathematical expression domain, the set of candidate functions and the set of known background theory to generate a composed model that satisfies a target data fidelity in a manner that also satisfies: a predetermined level of compatibility between the composed model and the set of known background theory, and a target complexity level of the composed model” and “wherein performing the model composition operation further comprises analyzing, in the mathematical expression domain, the set of candidate functions and the set of background theory to generate the composed model in a manner that applies: a first weighted user preference to the target data fidelity, a second weighted user preference to the predetermined level of compatibility between the composed model and the set of known background theory; and a target complexity level of the composed model“ are abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process. The limitation, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, but for the recitation of computer components or a generic computer. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a person could mentally provide an evaluation and judgement of composing or creating a model using potential functions for the model and a combination of known formulas (background theory), to see if the results provide a fidelity that also provides a compatibility between the known formulas and the model composed, along with providing an opinion of their preference for the fidelity and compatibility.
Under Step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites “representing a set of candidate functions in a mathematical expression domain, wherein the set of candidate functions define relationships between data of an existing system” and “representing a set of known background theory in the mathematical expression domain, wherein the set of known background theory define known relationships associated with the Existing system”, which, as disclosed in the 112 section, is interpreted as receiving or retrieving information.
In addition, the claim recites “wherein the mathematical expression domain is selected based at least in part on an expressive capability of the mathematical expression domain that comprises a breadth of the candidate functions that can be represented in the mathematical expression domain, wherein the mathematical expression domain comprises a polynomial mathematical expression”, which are providing descriptions of the mathematical expression domain, without adding meaningful limitations to the claim.
These additional limitations must be considered individually and with the claim as a whole to determine if it integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
These additional limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity because they are insignificant applications. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g). Simply providing candidate functions and a set of known background theory and providing a description of the judicial exception does not add meaningful limitations to the claim.
The claim as a whole, is linked to composing a model using possible functions and a set of known formulas (background theory), but there are no particular physical elements or steps in the claim that add a meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a physical process. Thus, the claim as a whole does not provide a practical application for the judicial exception.
Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The limitations that were determined extra-solution activity will require further analysis.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered to be mere data gathering. Providing candidate functions and a set of known background theory to perform the judicial exception are merely steps of data gathering, without additional steps that would make the features meaningful limitations to the claims.
Looking at the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 24 does not amount to significantly more.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 24 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With respect to claim 2, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 1, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claim 1, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 2 recites a description of an element used in the mental process performed. The limitation does not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 3, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claims 1 and 2, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claims 1 and 2, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 3 recites a description of an element used in the mental process performed. The limitation does not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 4, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claims 1 - 3, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claims 1 - 3, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 4 recites a description of an element used in the mental process performed. The limitation does not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 5, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 1, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claim 1, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 5 recites additional abstract ideas performed, in addition to the mental process performed in claim 1, as the steps are directed to a mental process. The limitations, similar to claim 1, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, but for the recitation of computer components or a generic computer. The limitation does not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 6, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 1, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claim 1, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 6 recites additional abstract ideas performed, in addition to the mental process performed in claim 1, as the steps are directed to a mental process. The limitations, similar to claim 1, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, but for the recitation of computer components or a generic computer. The limitation does not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 7, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 1, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claim 1, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 7 recites additional abstract ideas performed, in addition to the mental process performed in claim 1, as the steps are directed to a mental process. The limitations, similar to claim 1, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, but for the recitation of computer components or a generic computer. The limitation does not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 8, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 1, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claim 1, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 8 recites the computer environment used to perform the judicial exception in claim 1, indicated above as directed to a mental process, which under a broadest reasonable interpretation “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, but for the recitation of computer components or a generic computer. The limitation does not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 9 the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claims 1 and 8, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claims 1 and 8, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 9 recites a description of what the computer environment is using to perform the judicial exception in claim 1, indicated above as directed to a mental process, which under a broadest reasonable interpretation “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, but for the recitation of computer components or a generic computer. The limitation does not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 11, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 10, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claim 10, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 11 recites a description of an element used in the mental process performed. The limitation does not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 12, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claims 10 and 11, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claims 10 and 11, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 12 recites a description of an element used in the mental process performed. The limitation does not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 13, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 10, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claim 10, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 13 recites additional abstract ideas performed, in addition to the mental process performed in claim 10, as the steps are directed to a mental process. The limitations, similar to claim 10, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, but for the recitation of computer components or a generic computer. The limitation does not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 14, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 10, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claim 10, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 14 recites additional abstract ideas performed, in addition to the mental process performed in claim 10, as the steps are directed to a mental process. The limitations, similar to claim 10, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, but for the recitation of computer components or a generic computer. The limitation does not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 15, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 10, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claim 10, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 15 recites the computer environment used to perform the judicial exception in claim 10, indicated above as directed to a mental process, along with a description of what the computer environment is using to perform the judicial exception in claim 10, indicated above as directed to a mental process, which under a broadest reasonable interpretation “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, but for the recitation of computer components or a generic computer. The limitation does not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 17, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 16, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claim 16, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 17 recites a description of an element used in the mental process performed. The limitation does not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 18, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claims 16 and 17, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claims 16 and 17, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 18 recites a description of an element used in the mental process performed. The limitation does not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 19, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 16, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claim 16, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 19 recites additional abstract ideas performed, in addition to the mental process performed in claim 16, as the steps are directed to a mental process. The limitations, similar to claim 16, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, but for the recitation of computer components or a generic computer. The limitation does not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 20, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 16, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claim 16, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 20 recites additional abstract ideas performed, in addition to the mental process performed in claim 16, as the steps are directed to a mental process. The limitations, similar to claim 16, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, but for the recitation of computer components or a generic computer. The limitation does not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 21, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 16, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claim 16, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 21 recites the computer environment used to perform the judicial exception in claim 16, indicated above as directed to a mental process, along with a description of what the computer environment is using to perform the judicial exception in claim 16, indicated above as directed to a mental process, which under a broadest reasonable interpretation “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, but for the recitation of computer components or a generic computer. The limitation does not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 23, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 22, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claim 22, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 23 recites the computer environment used to perform the judicial exception in claim 22, indicated above as directed to a mental process, along with a description of what the computer environment is using to perform the judicial exception in claim 22, indicated above as directed to a mental process, which under a broadest reasonable interpretation “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, but for the recitation of computer components or a generic computer. The limitation does not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 25, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 24, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claim 24, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 25 recites the computer environment used to perform the judicial exception in claim 24, indicated above as directed to a mental process, along with a description of what the computer environment is using to perform the judicial exception in claim 24, indicated above as directed to a mental process, which under a broadest reasonable interpretation “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, but for the recitation of computer components or a generic computer. The limitation does not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 - 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 10, 16, 22 and 24 recite “representing a set of candidate functions in a mathematical expression domain” and “representing a set of known background theory in the mathematical expression domain”, but it is unclear exactly what is supposed to be representing the set of candidate functions in a mathematical expression and exactly what is supposed to be representing the set of known background theory in the mathematical expression domain. It is unclear if it is a variable, a system, a different mathematical expression, etc. is supposed to represent the set of candidate functions and represent the set of known background theory. The phrase is unclear, and renders the claims vague and indefinite.
Dependent claims 2 - 9, 11 - 15, 17 - 21, 23 and 25 are rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claims 1, 10, 16, 22, and 24.
Note: Based on the language of the claims as a whole, the examiner is interpreting the “representing” as “obtaining”, because, in order to perform the model composition operation, the set of candidate functions and set of known background theory appears to need to be obtained, determined, received, or retrieved.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 - 24 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The prior art of Cornelio et al. (“The Need for Verification in AI-Driven Scientific Discovery”) discloses background theory, derivable polynomials formed using background theory and data, Lu (U.S. PG Pub 2012/0035892 A1) discloses relationship between performance targets vs statistical model parameters and an order of target functions, Schmidt (U.S. PG Pub 2014/0172773 A1) discloses relationships between input representing data sets analyzed, with a data model representing a set of equations describing the data set, with each member of a set of equations are compared against equations from a different data set to determine relationships or similarity scores.
However, none of the references cited, including the prior art of Cornelio, Lu, and Schmidt, taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record discloses for claim 1: A programmable computer, for claim 10: A computer-implemented method, and for claim 16: A computer program product, including the steps of creating a composed model using a model composition operation that fulfills fidelity of a target data that also fulfills compatibility between a composed model and a set of known background theory in a mathematical expression domain, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicants’ invention defines over the prior art of record.
Dependent claims 2 - 9, 11 - 15, and 17 - 21 are allowable under 35 U.S.C. 103 for depending from claims 1, 10, and 16, allowable base claims under 35 U.S.C. 103.
The prior art of Cornelio et al. (“The Need for Verification in AI-Driven Scientific Discovery”) discloses background theory, derivable polynomials formed using background theory and data, Lu (U.S. PG Pub 2012/0035892 A1) discloses relationship between performance targets vs statistical model parameters and an order of target functions, Schmidt (U.S. PG Pub 2014/0172773 A1) discloses relationships between input representing data sets analyzed, with a data model representing a set of equations describing the data set, with each member of a set of equations are compared against equations from a different data set to determine relationships or similarity scores.
However, none of the references cited, including the prior art of Cornelio, Lu, and Schmidt, taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record discloses for claim 22: A programmable computer, and for claim 24: A computer program product, including the steps of creating a composed model using a model composition operation that fulfills fidelity of a target data that also fulfills compatibility between a composed model and a set of known background theory in a mathematical expression domain, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicants’ invention defines over the prior art of record.
Dependent claims 23 and 25 are allowable under 35 U.S.C. 103 for depending from claims 22 and 24, allowable base claims under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRIC D JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7089. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 4:30am - 2:00pm, F 4:30am - 11:30am.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at 571-270-1104. 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.
/Cedric Johnson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 July 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights