CTNF 18/238,532 CTNF 88930 DETAILED ACTION 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. 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant is advised to consult the 2019 PEG for more details of the analysis. Step 1 According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-6, 7, 8 are directed to a medium, method and apparatus of generating a ML program by using input data. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Step 2A, Step 2A, Prong 1 Following the determination of whether or not the claims fall within one of the four categories (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g. mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity) (Step 2A, Prong 1). In this case, the claims are determined to recite a judicial exception as explained below. Regarding Claims 1, 7 and 8 these claims recite extracting an operation description related to a data operation for input data to a machine learning program, from the machine learning program; determining an extraction condition of target data to be operated in the data operation, based on the extracted operation description; extracting the target data which satisfies the determined extraction condition, from the input data; and outputting sampling data which includes the extracted target data. The claims recite a mental process. As set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer”. These are recited at a high level such that they could be performed mentally, and they are also disclosed as a human user performing these functions, simply using a computer as a tool-see spec, [0038-0054], etc. Fig. 1. Thus, the claim recites abstract ideas. Step 2A, Prong 2 Following the determination that the claims recite a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception (Step 2A, Prong 2). In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception as explained below. In Prong Two, a claim is evaluated as a whole to determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. A claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception, and thus is patent eligible, if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The claims recite an abstract idea and further the claims as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). Regarding Claims 1, 7, 8 these claims This limitation recites using one or more neural networks as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f).) This limitation is understood to be generic computer equipment and 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 2106.0S(f)) Step 2B Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons given above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis. Furthermore, each additional element identified above as being insignificant extra-solution activity is also well-known, routine, conventional as described below. Claims 1, 7 and 8 : The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, 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 amount to no more than generic computing components and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The underlying concept merely receives information, analyzes it, and store the results of the analysis – this concept is not meaningfully different than concepts found by the courts to be abstract (see Electric Power Group , collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis; see Cybersource , obtaining and comparing intangible data; see Digitech , organizing information through mathematical correlations; see Grams , diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results; see Cyberfone , using categories to organize store and transmit information; see Smartgene , comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options). Further the claimed invention appears to be something that can be performed by head and hand (Gottschalk v. Benson). The claimed solution is not necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem (DDR v. Hotels.com). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “extracting…”, “determining…”, “extracting…” and “outputting…” etc. These elements are recited at a high level of generality and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the computer art. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Step 2A/2B Prong 2 Dependent Claims Regarding to claim 2 Claim 2 merely recite other additional elements that define the input data which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible. Regarding to claim 3 Claim 3 merely recite other additional elements that define a condition which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible. Regarding to claim 4 Claim 4 merely recite other additional elements that identify non-target data which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible. Regarding to claim 5 Claim 5 merely recite other additional elements that identify target data which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible. Regarding to claim 6 Claim 6 merely recite other additional elements that identify extraction condition from the ML programs which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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-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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatti et al. (Tatti) US 2020/0380379 in view of Osuala et al. (Osuala) US 2022/0382784 In regard to claim 1, Tatti disclose A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing an output program causing a computer to execute a process, the process comprising: ([0058]-[0060] memory store program cause the computer to execute an application ) extracting an operation description related to a data operation for input data to a machine learning program, from the machine learning program; ([0007]-[0010] [0038]-[0042] [0057]-[0063] access and identify meta data, statistical properties, etc. related to the operation of data quality tool for input data to a ML trainer, from the ML trainer) determining an extraction condition of target data to be operated in the data operation, based on the extracted operation description; ([0007]-[0010][0026] [0038]- [0042]-[0047] [0057]-[0063] determine rules for data operation applying the data quality tool based on the meta data and statistical properties, etc. Note: please further define the exaction condition to help move forward the prosecution since there are many possibilities) extracting the target data which satisfies the determined extraction condition, from the input data; ([0007]-[0010] [0047]-[0064] determine the data that comply with the rules) and determining sampling data which includes the extracted target data. ([0007]-[0010] [0047]-[0064][0068-[0073] [0079]-[0085] determine data with data quality value that include the subset which complies with the rules) But Tatti fail to explicitly disclose “output the sampling data.” Osula disclose output the sampling data. ([0026]-[0035][0048]-[0056] [0094]-[0108] generate the output data which complying the rule.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Osula’s method of determining an association rule using ML into Tatti’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of rule determination for the data using ML. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Osula’s method of outputting the data identified based on rule would help to provide output data into Tatti’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that providing output data based on the rule identified would improve user experience using the device. In regard to claim 2, Tatti and Osula disclose The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1, Tatti disclose wherein, in the determining of the extraction condition, a column name of a column, in which the target data is stored, in the input data in a table format is specified from the extracted operation description, and a condition in which the target data is stored in a column of the specified column name is included in the extraction condition. ([0007]-[0010][0026]-[0033] [0038]-[0042]-[0047] [0057]-[0063] in determining the rules, a column name of the column in the table is specified from the features, metadata and properties of the data and identify piece of data in the column of the data comply or not comply the rule and output the quality rule assessment) In regard to claim 3, Tatti and Osula disclose The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 2, Tatti disclose wherein, in the determining of the extraction condition, a condition in which the target data is stored in the column of the specified column name of a row which corresponds to an index designated in the extracted operation description is included in the extraction condition. ([0007]-[0010][0022]-[0033] [0038]-[0042]-[0047] [0051]-[0063] a rule in which the data in the column with the column name of each row complies and corresponding to features with vector and each piece data in the row has index corresponding to the operation description is included in the rule, such as meta data, properties data and statistical data) In regard to claim 4, Tatti and Osula disclose The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1, Tatti disclose wherein, in the extracting of the target data, non-target data which does not satisfy the extraction condition is deleted from the input data. ([0007]-[0010] [0026]-[0033] [0046]-[0053] the data which quality assessment are likely incorrect is able to be removed) In regard to claim 5, Tatti and Osula disclose The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1, Tatti disclose wherein, in the extracting of the target data, the target data which satisfies the determined extraction condition and label data to be predicted in machine learning which uses the machine learning program are extracted from the input data, ([0007]-[0010] [0022]-[0032] [0047]-[0044] determine the data that comply with the rules from the input data and label data to be outputted by the ML model) the sampling data which includes the label data; ([0007]-[0010] [0022]-[0032] [0047]-[0044] label data to be outputted by the ML model) But Tatti fail to explicitly disclose and wherein, in the outputting of the sampling data, the sampling data which includes the extracted target data is output.” Osula disclose and wherein, in the outputting of the sampling data, the sampling data which includes the extracted target data is output. ([0026]-[0035][0048]-[0056] [0094]-[0108] generate the output data which complying the rule) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Osula’s method of determining an association rule using ML into Tatti’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of rule determination for the data using ML. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Osula’s method of outputting the data identified based on rule would help to provide output data into Tatti’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that providing output data based on the rule identified would improve user experience using the device. In regard to claim 6, Tatti and Osula disclose The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1, Tatti disclose wherein, in the extracting of the operation description, the operation description for the input data common to a plurality of machine learning programs is extracted from each of the plurality of machine learning programs, the plurality of machine learning programs including the machine learning program, the extraction condition is determined for each of the plurality of machine learning programs, ([0007]-[0010] [0036]-[0051] [0057]-[0065] using multiple ML algorithms to associate data quality rules with the same identified meta data, property data and statistical data for the input data, the algorithms include the ML algorithm used, and data quality rules can be determined for each ML algorithm) and wherein, in the extracting of the target data, the target data which satisfies any one of a plurality of extraction conditions which correspond to the plurality of machine learning programs is extracted from the input data, the plurality of extraction conditions including the extraction condition. ([0007]-[0010][0037]-[0042] [0047]-[0064] determine the data that comply a rule of the set of data quality rules that corresponding to multiple ML algorithms, the set of data quality rules including the rule identified.) In regard to claim 7, claim 7 is a method claim corresponding to the medium claim 1 above and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 1. In regard to claim 8, claim 8 is an apparatus claim corresponding to the medium claim 1 above and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 1 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Documents PATENT DATE INVENTOR(S) TITLE US 20220058114 A1 2022-02-24 Ranjan et al. INTELLIGENT SOFTWARE TESTING Ranjan et al. disclose A system and method that improves the efficiency and accuracy of template selection process by applying machine learning to perform natural language processing (NLP) to automatically interpret the intent of the test scenarios and to match the intent of the test scenarios to appropriate test template(s). The system and method can use keyphrases and part-of-speech (POS) tokens to accurately capture the intent of test scenarios and templates. The system and method can additionally use machine learning to perform NLP to identify information from the test scenario(s) that relates to fields in templates to automatically fill in fields in the selected test template(s). In situations where the processing of the test scenario(s) does not provide all of the information necessary to fill every field of a template, the system and method can use machine learning to perform NLP to automatically create and execute a search statement to find the missing information related to empty fields in an application database… see abstract. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUYANG XIA whose telephone number is (571)270-3045. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Welch can be reached at 571-272-7212. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. XUYANG XIA Primary Examiner Art Unit 2143 /XUYANG XIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2143 Application/Control Number: 18/238,532 Page 2 Art Unit: 2143 Application/Control Number: 18/238,532 Page 3 Art Unit: 2143 Application/Control Number: 18/238,532 Page 4 Art Unit: 2143 Application/Control Number: 18/238,532 Page 5 Art Unit: 2143 Application/Control Number: 18/238,532 Page 6 Art Unit: 2143 Application/Control Number: 18/238,532 Page 7 Art Unit: 2143 Application/Control Number: 18/238,532 Page 8 Art Unit: 2143 Application/Control Number: 18/238,532 Page 9 Art Unit: 2143 Application/Control Number: 18/238,532 Page 10 Art Unit: 2143 Application/Control Number: 18/238,532 Page 11 Art Unit: 2143 Application/Control Number: 18/238,532 Page 12 Art Unit: 2143 Application/Control Number: 18/238,532 Page 13 Art Unit: 2143 Application/Control Number: 18/238,532 Page 14 Art Unit: 2143 Application/Control Number: 18/238,532 Page 15 Art Unit: 2143
Prosecution Insights