CTNF 18/230,501 CTNF 94442 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 103, for moving toward 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 present application filed on 08/04/2023 . Claim Objections Claim(s) 1-20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: it appears that “the data” (3 rd last line) needs to read “the new data” or something else. Appropriate correction is required. In addition, claim(s) 13, 20 is/are objected to for the same reason. Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: it appears that “the top K performing models” (3 rd last line, and 2 nd last line) needs to read “the set of top K performing models” or something else. Appropriate correction is required. In addition, claim(s) 13, 20 is/are objected to for the same reason. In addition, claim(s) 2, 14 is/are objected to for the same reason. Claim(s) 3 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: it appears that “the model score vectors” (line 4) needs to read “the set of model score vectors” or something else. Appropriate correction is required. In addition, claim(s) 15 is/are objected to for the same reason. Claim(s) 1-3, 13-15, 20 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 claims listed above . Appropriate explanation and/or amendment is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 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 “ the cluster” (3 rd last line). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear what it is referring to since it may indicate “cluster” (line 8) or “each cluster” (line 8) or something else. It appears it may need to read “a cluster”, or something else. For the purposes of examination, “a cluster” is used. In addition, claim(s) 13, 20 is/are rejected for the same reason. Claim(s) 1 recite(s) the limitation “ the clusters” (last line). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear what it is referring to. It appears it may need to read “clusters”, or something else. For the purposes of examination, “clusters” is used. In addition, claim(s) 10, 13, 20 is/are rejected for the same reason. Claim(s) 3 recite(s) the limitation “ the set of model vectors” (2 nd last line). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear what it is referring to. It appears it may need to read “a set of model vectors”, or something else. For the purposes of examination, “a set of model vectors” is used. In addition, claim(s) 15 is/are rejected for the same reason. Claim(s) 3 recite(s) the limitation “ the distributions of model scores” (2 nd last line). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear what it is referring to since it is not clear if it indicates “model score distributions” (claim 1, line 7) or something else. It appears it may need to read “distributions of model scores”, or something else. For the purposes of examination, “distributions of model scores” is used. In addition, claim(s) 15 is/are rejected for the same reason. Claim(s) 5 recite(s) the limitation “ the models” (last line). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear what it is referring to since it may indicate “machine learning models” (claim 1, line 5), or “the models” (claim 1, line 7), or “a set of top K performing models” (claim 1, line 8) or something else. It appears it may need to read “models”, or something else. For the purposes of examination, “models” is used. In addition, claim(s) 7, 17 is/are rejected for the same reason. The term “near” ( claim 9, line 1 ) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In addition, claim(s) 18 is/are rejected for the same reason. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-10, 13, 15, 17-18, 20 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 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 “… comprising: …: clustering health score vectors received from nodes operating in an environment, …; comparing a model score distribution for an ensemble of the models with model score distributions per cluster, to obtain a set of top K performing models for each cluster; …, identifying an associated health score vector for the data and … select the top K performing models; 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) (“at least one processing device including a processor coupled to a memory; the at least one processing device being configured to implement the following steps”, “using the top K performing models corresponding to the cluster for the associated health score vector to”) – using a device and/or 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 (“the health score vectors including feature health scores for sensors used by machine learning models”) . 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) (“upon receiving new data for prediction”) – the act of receiving data. The claim is adding an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g). The act of receiving 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. 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) (“deploying the clusters and model ensembles to the nodes”) – the act of transmitting data. The claim is adding an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g). The act of transmitting data is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic act of performing a generic act function of transmitting data) such that it amounts no more than a mere act to apply the exception using a generic act of transmitting. 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 element(s) 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. 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). 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 “… select a model among the top K performing models for generating the inferences” , 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) (“causing the nodes to generate inferences using the deployed clusters and model ensembles to”) – using a device and/or 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. 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). 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 “for each cluster, determining a set of model score vectors per cluster, …, and using the set of model vectors to construct the distributions of model scores per cluster” , 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 recites an additional element (“the model score vectors containing model scores”) . 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) Step 2B : The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. 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). 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 “wherein the model scores are determined by generating a vector for each model, …” , 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 recites an additional element (“the vector including feature importance scores for each feature of a corresponding model and the feature health scores for each feature of each sensor used by the corresponding model”) . 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) Step 2B : The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. 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). 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 limitations of “wherein the feature importance scores are arranged in a first matrix and the feature health scores are arranged in a second matrix” , 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). The limitations of “wherein each vector is a dot product of a corresponding first matrix and a corresponding second matrix, and” , as drafted, are a machine 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 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. 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 recites an additional element (“wherein the vector includes a model score for each of the models”) . 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) Step 2B : The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. 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). 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 “wherein the model score distributions are constructed using distribution fitting” , 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 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 limitations of “wherein the model score distribution for the ensemble of the models is compared with the model score distributions per cluster using a probability distance measure” , 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 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 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 (“wherein the feature health scores are collected according to a pre-determined period that is specified for each node”) . 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) Step 2B : The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. 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). 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 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) (“wherein the health score vectors are received at a near edge node configured to accumulate the health score vectors prior to transmission to a central node”) – the act of receiving/transmitting data. The claim is adding an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g). The act of receiving/transmitting data is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic act of performing a generic act function of receiving/transmitting data) such that it amounts no more than a mere act to apply the exception using a generic act of transmitting. 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(s) of receiving/transmitting 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. 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 “wherein the clusters and model ensembles are reset periodically for re-clustering” , 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 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 health score vectors are clustered …” , 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 unsupervised multi-dimensional clustering”) – using a device and/or 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. 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). Regarding claim 12 The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 : The claim recites a system; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of a machine. Step 2A Prong 1 : The limitations of “wherein the health score vectors are clustered … based on labels …” , 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 supervised multi-dimensional clustering”) – using a device and/or 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) (“labels received from the nodes”) – the act of receiving data. The claim is adding an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g). The act of receiving 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. 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). As discussed above, the claim recites the additional element(s) 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. Regarding claim 13 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 14 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. Regarding claim 15 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. Regarding claim 16 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. Regarding claim 17 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. Regarding claim 18 The claim is rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 9 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 19 The claim is rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of a combination of Claims 11 and 12 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 20 The claim recites “A non-transitory processor-readable storage medium having stored thereon program code of one or more software programs, wherein the program code when executed by at least one processing device causes the at least one processing device to perform the following steps:” to perform precisely the system of Claim 1. As performance of an abstract idea on generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and “Storing and retrieving information in memory” (see MPEP 2106.05(g) on Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP 2106.05(d) on Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity) 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 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-2, 6-8, 10, 13-14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lakshmanan et al. (US 2022/0004935 A1) in view of Manmatha et al. (Modeling Score Distributions for Combining the Outputs of Search Engines) in view of Seo et al. (MDED-Framework: A Distributed Microservice Deep-Learning Framework for Object Detection in Edge Computing) Regarding claim 1 Lakshmanan teaches A system comprising: at least one processing device including a processor coupled to a memory; (Lakshmanan [fig(s) 1] “Computing System” ; ) the at least one processing device being configured to implement the following steps: (Lakshmanan [fig(s) 1] “Computing System” ; ) clustering health score vectors received from nodes operating in an environment, the health score vectors including feature health scores for sensors used by machine learning models; (Lakshmanan [fig(s) 6] [fig(s) 8] “Clusterizer” [fig(s) 9] “Receive a deep feature vector from a feature extractor of an ensemble learning system, the deep feature vector extracted from input data”, “ Cluster the deep feature vector into a plurality of clusters based on a distance into tile plurality of clusters” [par(s) 11-14] “FIG. 6 is a block diagram depicting an example neural network topology for ensemble learning for deep feature defect detection of implementations of the disclosure.” [par(s) 93-100] “As shown in FIG. 6, neural network topology 600 (referred to herein as topology 600) depicts a two-staged machine learning model that can learn from distributed data sources. The distributed data sources 610 provide input data, such as sensor data. The distributed data sources 610 may be distributed throughout an organizational settings, such as a production environment or a manufacturing environment, for example. The distributed data source may include, but are not limited to, a camera 611, time-series data 612, light data 613, audio data 614, LIDAR data 615, or 3D camera data 616 . In one implementations, the input data can be of high dimensionality. … In order to make the data simple for the two-staged ML model system described herein to process, the input data used for anomaly detection is obtained as a "feature vector" (also referred to as a deep feature herein) by using DL model 730. DL model 730 is a pre-trained deep learning network model used as a primary feature extractor .” [par(s) 101-113] “Model ensemble 830 includes an ensemble of trained secondary probabilistic model(s), such as Ml 831, M2 832, M3 833, M4 834, through Mn 835 . … Method 900 begins at block 910 where the processing device may receive a deep feature vector from a feature extractor of an ensemble learning system, the deep feature vector extracted from input data. In one implementation, the input data includes sensor data . Then, at block 920, the processing device may cluster the deep feature vector into a plurality of clusters based on a distance into the plurality of clusters.” ; ) ( Note : Hereinafter, if a limitation has bold brackets (i.e. [·] ) around claim languages, the bracketed claim languages indicate that they have not been taught yet by the current prior art reference but they will be taught by another prior art reference afterwards.) [comparing] a model score distribution for an ensemble of the models with model score distributions per cluster, to obtain a set of top K performing model [s] for each cluster; (Lakshmanan [fig(s) 6] [fig(s) 8] “Clusterizer” [fig(s) 9] [par(s) 148] “the probabilistic machine learning model is part of an ensemble of probabilistic machine learning models trained to predict a likelihood of a defect among deep feature vectors grouped into clusters corresponding to each the probabilistic machine learning models of the ensemble.” [par(s) 101-109] “Model ensemble 830 includes an ensemble of trained secondary probabilistic model(s), such as M1 831, M2 832, M3 833, M4 834, through Mn 835 . Each secondary probabilistic model 831-835 in the model ensemble 830 is tuned for a corresponding data cluster 821-825 created by clusterizer 820 . For example, as shown in FIG. 8, M1 831 is tuned for Cl 821, M2 832 is tuned for C2 822, M3 833 is tuned for C3 823, M4 834 is tuned for C4 824, and so on through Mn 835 being tuned for Cn 825. In some implementations, probabilistic models 831-835 for the underlying data are created using algorithms, such as GMM or other Bayesian models . In one implementations, every time a new data point is added to a particular cluster 821-825, the corresponding probabilistic model gets tuned to make the model more accurate . In implementations herein, the ensemble 830 of probabilistic machine learning models 831-835 are trained to predict a likelihood (e.g., output 840) of a defect among deep feature vectors grouped into clusters corresponding to each of the probabilistic machine learning models 831-835 of the ensemble 830” [par(s) 110-113] “Then, at block 920, the processing device may cluster the deep feature vector into a plurality of clusters based on a distance into the plurality of clusters.” ; ) upon receiving new data for prediction, identifying an associated health score vector for the data and using the top K performing model [s] corresponding to the cluster for the associated health score vector to select the top K performing model [s] ; and (Lakshmanan [fig(s) 6] [fig(s) 8] “Clusterizer” [fig(s) 9] [par(s) 148] “the probabilistic machine learning model is part of an ensemble of probabilistic machine learning models trained to predict a likelihood of a defect among deep feature vectors grouped into clusters corresponding to each the probabilistic machine learning models of the ensemble.” [par(s) 101-109] “In some implementations, each time a new deep feature 810 is received at the second stage 800, the clusterizer 820 is trained to add the deep feature to an existing cluster 821-825. … Model ensemble 830 includes an ensemble of trained secondary probabilistic model(s), such as M1 831, M2 832, M3 833, M4 834, through Mn 835 . Each secondary probabilistic model 831-835 in the model ensemble 830 is tuned for a corresponding data cluster 821-825 created by clusterizer 820 . For example, as shown in FIG. 8, M1 831 is tuned for Cl 821, M2 832 is tuned for C2 822, M3 833 is tuned for C3 823, M4 834 is tuned for C4 824, and so on through Mn 835 being tuned for Cn 825. In some implementations, probabilistic models 831-835 for the underlying data are created using algorithms, such as GMM or other Bayesian models . In one implementations, every time a new data point is added to a particular cluster 821-825, the corresponding probabilistic model gets tuned to make the model more accurate . In implementations herein, the ensemble 830 of probabilistic machine learning models 831-835 are trained to predict a likelihood (e.g., output 840) of a defect among deep feature vectors grouped into clusters corresponding to each of the probabilistic machine learning models 831-835 of the ensemble 830” [par(s) 110-113] “Then, at block 920, the processing device may cluster the deep feature vector into a plurality of clusters based on a distance into the plurality of clusters.” ; ) However, Lakshmanan does not appear to explicitly teach: [comparing] a model score distribution for an ensemble of the models with model score distributions per cluster, to obtain a set of top K performing model [s] for each cluster; upon receiving new data for prediction, identifying an associated health score vec