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 .
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner encourages Applicant to schedule an interview to discuss issues related to, for example, the rejections noted below under 35 U.S.C § 101 and § 112, for moving forward allowance.
Providing supporting paragraph(s) for each limitation of amended/new claim(s) in Remarks is strongly requested for clear and definite claim interpretations by Examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for the provisional application filed on 08/04/2022.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In Remarks, pp. 2-10, Applicant contends:
Step 2A, Prong One
Applicant respectfully submits that at least the limitations of currently amended claim 1 of "identify and abstract, using an auxiliary feature extraction module, a first feature associated with the at least a seed set of labeled data, wherein the first feature is associated with at least one of: training and determining embeddings; extract, using a task-specific feature extraction module operably responsive to the auxiliary feature extraction module, a second feature, wherein the second feature is associated with a machine-learning task associated with the neural network; wherein feature extraction is associated with identifying non-domain specific features and isolating such features for processing" do not fall within the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas.
…
Step 2A Prong Two
Here, analogously to Example 47, at least the limitations of currently amended claim 1 integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because (1) the specification teaches a technological improvement.
According to the background section, " ... when computer devices are engaged to support this type of digital data value extraction, many data sets are insufficient for the neural network model to converge and achieve the desired level of performance, accuracy, or training efficiency" (e.g., see paragraph 0003).
The disclosed apparatus provides a number of technological improvements in the field of machine-learning (see paragraph 0002).
Notably, the disclosed apparatus improves efficacy of supervised learning (see paragraph 0002).
For example, the disclosed apparatus improves feature extraction, a key technical process used in machine learning, in order to reduce dimensionality of representation and make recognition processes computationally more efficient (see paragraph 0021).
…
Analogously to Example 47, at least the limitations of currently amended claim 1 integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because (2) the claimed invention reflects the improvements described above in the field of machine learning.
…
Further, at least the limitations of currently amended claim 1 detailed above reflect the technological improvements to the technical problems described in the background (permitting neural network models to converge with fewer data sets and thereby extract data with improved levels of performance, accuracy, and training efficiency)
…
Step 2B
The above recited limitations, including at least the limitations claim 1 as amended, are not generic and instead recite a novel approach comprising "an auxiliary feature extraction module"; "a task-specific feature extraction module" and "wherein feature extraction is associated with identifying non-domain specific features and isolating such features for processing".
…
Further, claim 1 has features that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because such features provide a technical contribution to the field of machine learning, which differs from conventional systems that do not achieve the desired level of performance, accuracy, or training efficiency in environments that are complex and heterogeneous in nature (see paragraph 0003).
Examiner’s response:
The examiner understands the applicant’s assertion.
However, it appears that each processing step is just applying the abstract idea to a general field of endeavor with additional elements. In addition, improvements to technology or technical field are not necessarily reflected in the claims. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Step 2A Prong One, the examiner understands the applicant’s assertion.
However, as rejected in Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101, there are several steps which can be performed in the human mind other than the additional elements. The “identify and abstract” step can be practically performed in the human mind based on observation and judgement except the additional elements (e.g., “using an auxiliary feature extraction module” and “wherein the first feature is associated with at least one of: training and determining embeddings”). The “extract” step also can be practically performed in the human mind based on observation and judgement except the additional elements (e.g., “using a task-specific feature extraction module operably responsive to the auxiliary feature extraction module” and “wherein the second feature is associated with a machine-learning task associated with the neural network;”). In addition, the third limitation is considered just an additional element (“wherein feature extraction is associated with identifying non-domain specific features and isolating such features for processing;”) in the eligibility analysis, as rejected in Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101. Thus, it appears that the processing steps are just applying the abstract idea to a general field of endeavor with additional elements.
In addition, regarding Step 2A Prong Two, the examiner understands the applicant’s assertion. However, the claim doesn’t clearly show how to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The Applicant mentioned “many data sets are insufficient for the neural network model to converge and achieve the desired level of performance, accuracy, or training efficiency" (e.g., see paragraph 0003)”, “The disclosed apparatus provides a number of technological improvements in the field of machine-learning (see paragraph 0002)”, “For example, the disclosed apparatus improves feature extraction, a key technical process used in machine learning, in order to reduce dimensionality of representation and make recognition processes computationally more efficient (see paragraph 0021)”, “Primary model training module 168 may use the training data to train the neural network model" (see paragraph 0017)”, “enable more efficient subsequent analysis (see paragraph 0024)”, “the disclosed apparatus can be used to train the neural network model to perform technical tasks that have real world and societal benefits, such as, early disease risk prediction, patient risk-stratification, and personalized medical decisions (see paragraph 0017)”.
However, it is not clear what the actual improvements of this invention are, based on the paragraphs the Applicant mentioned. In other words, it is not clear if the combination of the paragraphs is actual improvements, or one or some specific paragraphs are actual improvements. For example, par 3 states “performance, accuracy, or training efficiency”, and par 21 states “reduce dimensionality of representation and make recognition processes computationally more efficient” and par 24 states “enable more efficient subsequent analysis” and par 17 states “train the neural network model to perform technical tasks that have real world and societal benefits”. However, it is not clear what the actual improvements of this invention are since it seems each paragraph has its own different/diverse alleged improvement. Furthermore, it is not clear how each paragraph is interconnected to achieve actual improvements of this invention, and it is not clear how each module (e.g., auxiliary model training module, task-specific feature extraction module, etc.) is interconnected to achieve actual improvements of this invention. Besides, “first feature” are identified and “second features” are extracted, but it doesn’t appear that they are used in the later steps, for some reason. It also appears that the training step doesn’t provide details on how the embedding model is trained.
Moreover, the Applicant mentioned “Further, at least the limitations of currently amended claim 1 detailed above reflect the technological improvements to the technical problems described in the background (permitting neural network models to converge with fewer data sets and thereby extract data with improved levels of performance, accuracy, and training efficiency)”. However, it is not clear if “permitting neural network models to converge with fewer data sets and thereby extract data with improved levels of performance, accuracy, and training efficiency” is an actual improvement of this invention. Even when this is considered as an alleged improvement, it is not clear how the claim reflects the alleged improvement. In addition, it is not clear how/why at least the limitations of currently amended claim 1 reflect the technological improvements to the technical problems described in the background. The applicant may need to explain how/why the claim reflects the alleged improvement. Thus, it doesn’t appear that the recited limitations impose meaningful limits to the claims beyond the judicial exception.
Finally, regarding Step 2B, the examiner understands the applicant’s assertion “The above recited limitations … are not generic and instead recite a novel approach comprising "an auxiliary feature extraction module"; "a task-specific feature extraction module" and "wherein feature extraction is associated with identifying non-domain specific features and isolating such features for processing"” and “claim 1 has features that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because such features provide a technical contribution to the field of machine learning, which differs from conventional systems that do not achieve the desired level of performance, accuracy, or training efficiency in environments that are complex and heterogeneous in nature (see paragraph 0003).”
However, as rejected under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101, the modules and the feature extraction are considered additional elements in the 101 eligibility analysis. In addition, as explained above, it doesn’t appear that the claim has features that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The examiner also understands the applicant’s assertion regarding claim 11. However, claim 11 is also rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as reciting an abstract idea without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application nor providing significantly more than the judicial exception. For more details, please refer to the rejections under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101.
It doesn’t appear that the independent claims clearly show how the inventive concept of the claims enables improvements and how they are tied together. The applicant may need to amend the claims to show how the claim languages and improvements are tied together. In addition, for example, regarding the training, specificity on the embedding model, the supervised machine-learning application, their relationship and the seed data in more detailed elaboration may overcome the 101 rejections.
For at least these reasons, Applicant's arguments are not convincing.
The Examiner encourages Applicant to schedule an interview to discuss the rejections noted below under 35 U.S.C § 101.
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 USC § 103 with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments are directed to amended limitation(s) that has/have not been previously examined.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 9, 15, 19 is/are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim(s) 9 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: For clarification, it appears that “the vector representations” (line 7) may need to read “third vector representations” (line 7), and “the vector representations” (line 8) may need to read “the third vector representations”, or something else. This amendment avoids a possible rejection under 112(b) on “the vector representations” (line 8). Appropriate correction is required. In addition, claim(s) 19 is/are objected to for the same reason.
Claim(s) 15 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: it appears “the at least one first data sets” (line 1) need to read “the at least one first data set” to indicate “at least one first data set” (in claim 11). Appropriate correction is required. In addition, “the at least one first data sets” (line 2) is/are objected to for the same reason.
Claim(s) 9, 15, 19 each recite(s) limitations that raise issues of indefiniteness as set forth above, and their dependent claims are objected to at least based on their direct and/or indirect dependency from the claim listed above. Appropriate explanation and/or amendment is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/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.
Claim(s) 1 recite(s) the limitation “that” (line 15). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if “that” indicates “information” (line 13) or a data element in the data, or something else. It appears that “that” indicates “information” (line 13), or something else. For the purposes of examination, “information” is used. In addition, claim 11 is rejected for the same reason. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 1 recite(s) the limitation “the at least a seed set of labeled data contains information and classification methods structurally analogous to that required in a data to be classified” (line 13). It is not clear if “structurally analogous” is for “information” or “information and classification methods” or “classification methods” or something else, since “that” is in a singular form and it appears “that” is referring to “information”. Furthermore, par 15 states “As used herein, "structurally analogous" is defined as having the organizational and formatting properties sufficiently similar such that the two data sets may be classified using the same protocols and mechanisms” and par 32 states “processor 108 is configured to next identify one or more first data sets from the unlabeled set as being structurally analogous to one or more second data sets from the seed set based on the respective vector representations of the one or more first data sets and the one or more second data sets.” In other words, two sets of data are structurally analogous to each other e.g., based on vector representations of those two sets of data (e.g., not based on “classification methods”). Thus, it appears that it needs to read “the at least a seed set of labeled data contains information and classification methods, wherein the information is structurally analogous to that required in a data to be classified”, or something else. For the purposes of examination, “the at least a seed set of labeled data contains information and classification methods, wherein the information is structurally analogous to that required in a data to be classified” is used. In addition, claim 11 is rejected for the same reason. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 9 recite(s) the limitation “the vector representations” (line 7). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if it means “vector representations”, or if it indicates “first vector representations” (claim 1) or “second vector representations” (claim 1), or something else. It appears that it needs to read “vector representations” or something else. For the purposes of examination, “vector representations” is used. Appropriate correction is required. In addition, claim(s) 19 is/are rejected for the same reason.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 11, 19 each recite(s) limitations that raise issues of indefiniteness as set forth above, and their dependent claims are rejected at least based on their direct and/or indirect dependency from the claims listed above. Appropriate explanation and/or amendment 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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: The claim recites a system; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The limitations of
“… for cohort identification … based on a seed data set, …:
…;
…; and
…,
… to:
…;
identify and abstract, …, a first feature associated with the at least a seed set of labeled data, …;
extract, …, a second feature, …;
…;
…;
determine, …, a plurality of first vector representations corresponding to the at least a seed set of labeled data;
determine, …, a plurality of second vector representations corresponding to an unlabeled set of data;
identify at least one first data set from the unlabeled set of data as having a structurally analogous relationship to at least one second data set from the at least a seed set of labeled data based on the respective vector representations of the at least one first data set and the at least one second data set;
…;
incorporate the feedback as training data for the embedding model; and
…”, as drafted, are a machine that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the limitations in the context of this claim encompass the user mentally thinking with a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In particular, the claim recites an additional element(s) (“using machine-learning”, “wherein the apparatus comprises: at least a processor; a database; and a memory communicatively connected to the at least a processor”, “wherein the memory contains instructions configuring the at least a processor”, “database”, “using an auxiliary feature extraction module”, “using a task-specific feature extraction module operably responsive to the auxiliary feature extraction module” “using the embedding model”, “a supervised machine-learning application”) – using a device and a model to process data. The device and the model in each step are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, the claim recites an additional element(s) (“wherein the apparatus comprises a neural network”, “wherein the at least a seed set of labeled data comprises electronic health record data”, “wherein the first feature is associated with at least one of: training and determining embeddings”, “wherein the second feature is associated with a machine-learning task associated with the neural network”, “wherein feature extraction is associated with identifying non-domain specific features and isolating such features for processing”). This is a recitation of a particular type or source of model/data to be used in performing the abstract idea. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular type or source of model/data is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h)
In particular, the claim recites an additional element(s) (“receive at least a seed set of labeled data from the database, wherein the at least a seed set of labeled data contains information and classification methods structurally analogous to that required in a data to be classified”, “receive feedback regarding the structurally analogous relationship of the at least one first data set to the at least a seed set of labeled data;”) – the act of receiving/obtaining data. The claim is adding an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g). The act of receiving/obtaining data is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic act of receiving performing a generic act function of receiving data) such that it amounts no more than a mere act to apply the exception using a generic act of receiving/obtaining. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, the claim recites an additional element(s) (“train an embedding model based on the at least a seed set of labeled data, wherein training the embedding model comprises: adjusting connections and weights between nodes in adjacent layers of the embedding model;”). The additional element is recited at such a high level without any details as to how an embedding model is trained such that it amounts to only the idea of a solution or outcome because it fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, and, therefore, represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, the claim recites an additional element(s) (“provide the at least one first data set as labeled training data to a supervised machine-learning application”) – the act of providing (i.e. inputting) data. The claim is adding an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g). The act of inputting data is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic act of inputting performing a generic act function of inputting data) such that it amounts no more than a mere act to apply the exception using a generic act of inputting. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: 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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a generic computer component to perform each step amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. MPEP 2106.05(f).
This is a recitation of a particular type or source of model/data to be used in performing the abstract idea. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular type or source of model/data is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of receiving data at a high-level of generality and is adding an insignificant extra-solution activity – see MPEP 2106.05(g). However, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) – “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” or “Storing and retrieving information in memory”. Accordingly, this additional element does not provide an inventive concept and significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
The additional elements regarding training are recited at such a high level without any details as to how a model is trained such that it amounts to only the idea of a solution or outcome because it fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, and, therefore, represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As discussed above, the claim recites the additional element(s) of transmitting data at a high-level of generality and is adding an insignificant extra-solution activity – see MPEP 2106.05(g) – “Mere Data Gathering”. However, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) – “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” or “Storing and retrieving information in memory”. Accordingly, this additional element does not provide an inventive concept and significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, 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: The claim recites a system; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The limitations of
“extracting and labeling data using an … search and preexisting metadata”, as drafted, are a machine that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the limitations in the context of this claim encompass the user mentally thinking with a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In particular, the claim recites an additional element(s) (“using an internet-based search”) – using a device/model to process data. The device in each step is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: 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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a generic computer component to perform each step amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f)
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: The claim recites a system; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The limitations of
“using optical character recognition to extrapolate at least a portion of a contained data”, as drafted, are a machine that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the limitations in the context of this claim encompass the user mentally thinking with a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not recite additional elements. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, 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: The claim recites a system; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The limitations of
“using an analytical process to incorporate user inputs as training data”, as drafted, are a machine that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the limitations in the context of this claim encompass the user mentally thinking with a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not recite additional elements. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5
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: The claim recites a system; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea identified above regarding claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites an additional element(s) (“providing the at least one first data set to the neural network”) – the act of providing (i.e. inputting) data. The claim is adding an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g). The act of inputting data is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic act of inputting performing a generic act function of inputting data) such that it amounts no more than a mere act to apply the exception using a generic act of inputting. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the claim recites the additional element of transmitting data at a high-level of generality and is adding an insignificant extra-solution activity – see MPEP 2106.05(g) – “Mere Data Gathering”. However, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) – “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” or “Storing and retrieving information in memory”. Accordingly, this additional element does not provide an inventive concept and significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, 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: The claim recites a system; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The limitations of
“determining the plurality of first vector representations …”, as drafted, are a machine that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the limitations in the context of this claim encompass the user mentally thinking with a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In particular, the claim recites an additional element(s) (“using an auxiliary supervised machine-learning application”) – using a model to process data. The model in each step is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: 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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a generic computer component to perform each step amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f)
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: The claim recites a system; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea identified above regarding claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In particular, the claim recites an additional element(s) (“applying a plurality of new cohort classifiers to the unlabeled set of data based on a mathematically comparable vector representation grouping mechanism”) – using a model to process data. The model in each step is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: 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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a generic computer component to perform each step amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f)
Regarding claim 8
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: The claim recites a system; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The limitations of
“wherein the mathematically comparable vector representation grouping mechanism is configured to:
generate similarity metrics by comparing each first vector representation of the plurality of first vector representations with each second vector representation of the plurality of second vector representations; and
identify the at least one first data set from the unlabeled set of data by matching the at least one first data set to the at least one second data set as a function of the similarity metrics”, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation based on mathematical relationships and/or mathematical formulas or equations and/or mathematical calculations. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed based on mathematical relationships and/or mathematical formulas or equations and/or mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation based on mathematical relationships and/or mathematical formulas or equations and/or mathematical calculations, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not recite additional elements. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, 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: The claim recites a system; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The limitations of
“… :
…; and
implement correlations for the labeled training data;
accept, …, the vector representations and apply the vector representations to the unlabeled set of data”, as drafted, are a machine that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the limitations in the context of this claim encompass the user mentally thinking with a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In particular, the claim recites an additional element(s) (“wherein the memory further comprises instructions configuring the at least a processor to”, “by an augmented data extraction module”) – using a device to process data. The device and the model in each step are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, the claim recites an additional element(s) (“train a primary cohort identifier model by correlating a labeled seed set cohort with the unlabeled set of data based on similarity thresholds using a vector extraction and a vector clustering process”). The additional element is recited at such a high level without any details as to how to accomplish a solution to a problem such that it amounts to only the idea of a solution or outcome because it fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, and, therefore, represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: 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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a generic computer component to perform each step amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements regarding training are recited at such a high level without any details as to how to accomplish a solution to a problem such that it amounts to only the idea of a solution or outcome because it fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, and, therefore, represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
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: The claim recites a system; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The limitations of
“identifying new groupings”, as drafted, are a machine that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the limitations in the context of this claim encompass the user mentally thinking with a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not recite additional elements. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11
The claim is rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 101, mutatis mutandis, as reciting an abstract idea without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application nor providing significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 12
The claim is rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 101, mutatis mutandis, as reciting an abstract idea without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application nor providing significantly more than the judicial exception.
Note that the claim recites “by the at least a processor” to perform precisely steps of Claim 2. As performance of an abstract idea on generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claim is rejected for reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 2.
Regarding claim 13
The claim is rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 101, mutatis mutandis, as reciting an abstract idea without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application nor providing significantly more than the judicial exception.
Note that the claim recites “by the at least a processor” to perform precisely steps of Claim 3. As performance of an abstract idea on generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claim is rejected for reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding claim 14
The claim is rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 101, mutatis mutandis, as reciting an abstract idea without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application nor providing significantly more than the judicial exception.
Note that the claim recites “by the at least a processor” to perform precisely steps of Claim 4. As performance of an abstract idea on generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claim is rejected for reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 4.
Regarding claim 15
The claim is rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 101, mutatis mutandis, as reciting an abstract idea without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application nor providing significantly more than the judicial exception.
Note that the claim recites “by the at least a processor” to perform precisely steps of Claim 5. As performance of an abstract idea on generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claim is rejected for reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 5.
Regarding claim 16
The claim is rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 101, mutatis m