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 .
DETAIL ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 6/9/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. As summarized in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions.
Step 1
In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant invention further encompasses three sets of claims: an apparatus (i.e. a manufacture) in claims 1-12, a method in claims 13-19 (i.e., a process) and a machine in claim 20 (i.e. a machine), which are clearly directed to one of the four statutory categories and meet the requirements of step 1.
Step 2A
Prong One
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significant more. The instant invention is broadly directed to “generating an output of the trained machine-learning or artificial intelligence process”. Claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis added):
Claim 1: An apparatus, comprising:
a communications interface;
a memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor coupled to the communications interface and to the memory, the at least one processor being configured to execute the instructions to:
receive an inferencing request from a computing system via the communications interface, the inferencing request comprising elements of payload data, and the inferencing request being associated with an application, in real-time, of a trained machine-learning or artificial intelligence process to an input dataset;
based on the inferencing request, obtain configuration data associated with the trained machine-learning or artificial intelligence process, the configuration data being generated by the computing system;
perform operations that (i) generate the input dataset based on an application of one or more feature-engineering operations to the elements of payload data in accordance with a first portion of the configuration data, and (ii) generate output data based on the application, in real-time, of the trained machine- learning or artificial intelligence process to the input dataset; and
transmit, to the computing system via the communications interface, a response to the inferencing request that includes at least at least a portion of the output data.
The bold portions of claim 1 encompass the abstract idea, which is also encompassed by the dependent claims 2-12, and substantially also encompassed by claims 13-19 and 20.
Claims 1, 12 and 20 recite the rules and steps to provide a system obtaining elements of predicted output generated through an application of one or more trained machine-learning or artificial-intelligence processes. These limitations, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.
Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because mere instruction to implement on computers (i.e. computing system or processors in claim 1), or merely using computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment for field of use is not considered integration into a practical application. Claim 1 recites using input dataset to generate output data of the trained machine-learning or artificial intelligence process. Using input data to a trained machine-learning or artificial intelligence process is a generic feature of artificial process, which does not represent a technological improvement. The using of the computer and artificial intelligence process does not add improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology field, which failed to enable the abstract idea to integrate into a practical application. The claims are drafted in a result-oriented fashion, without the requisite specificity needed to provide a nonabstract technological solution. The computing system and artificial intelligence process are directed to the components of a system amount to merely field of use type limitations and/or extra solution activity to implement the abstract idea as presented.
Step 2B
Step 2B in the analysis requires us to determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe that abstract method. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297. We must examine the limitations of the claims to determine whether the claims contain an "inventive concept" to "transform" the claimed abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1298). The transformation of an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter "requires 'more than simply stat[ing] the [abstract idea] while adding the words 'apply it."' Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294) (alterations in original). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].'" Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297) (alterations in original). Those "additional features" must be more than "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298.
The present claims include the additional elements other than the abstract idea which include a computing system or processor and communication interface. These additional elements are merely used for insignificant extra-solution activity, in which these conventional machines and their ability to communicate are related to implementing rules and steps to provide a system to predict output of one or more trained machine-learning or artificial-intelligence processes. Use of a machine or apparatus that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would weigh against eligibility. See Bilski, 138 S. Ct. at 3230 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, ___ (1978)), and Cybersource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 99 USPQ2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Thus the present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims are generally linked to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. When looked at individually and as a whole, the claim limitations are determined to be an abstract idea without "significantly more," and thus not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
GAO et al (US 20190114511 A1).
Chen et al (US 11776273 B1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHUBING REN whose telephone number is (571)272-2788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 571-2727383. 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.
/ZHUBING REN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483