DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This action is responsive to the Preliminary Amendment filed on 7 / 27/2023. Cla ims 1- 18, 25, and 31 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 9, 15 , and 25 are independent claims. Claim Interpretation Claim s 2 and 16 recite “for training local ML models” which appears to be an intended use rather than a positive claim limitation. Claim 11 recite s “ artificial neural network (ANN) ” which is an umbrella term encompassing the other recited alternatives. Claim Objections Claim s 4- 5, 11, 14-15 , and 18 are ob jected to because of the following informalities: Claim s 4 and 18 recite “ w i is vector ” where “ w i a is vector ” was apparently intended. Claim 5 recites “method of any claim 1” where “method of claim 1 ” was apparently intended. Claim 11 recites “ a artificial ” where “ a n artificial ” was apparently intended. Claim 14 is missing a period. Claim 15 recites “ to plurality ” where “ to a plurality ” was apparently intended. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The claims recite “ C i,j = w i T w j ||w i |||| w j || ,” but t he original disclosure does not define T, w i T , j, or w j , and therefore the overall formula. Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was fi led, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims recite “ C i,j = w i T w j ||w i |||| w j || ,” but the original disclosure does not define T, w i T , j, or w j , and therefore the overall formula. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The claim recites “ f G i+1 = m=1 M β m f D m i ( x 0 ) , where β m = 1, If labels are unique acc( f D m i+1 ( x 0 )), &If labels are unique , where acc( f D m i+1 ( x 0 )) ,” but the original disclosure does not define x 0 , and therefore the overall formula. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim recites “ f G i+1 = m=1 M β m f D m i ( x 0 ) , where β m = 1, If labels are unique acc( f D m i+1 ( x 0 )), &If labels are unique , where acc( f D m i+1 ( x 0 )) ,” but the original disclosure does not define x 0 , and therefore the overall formula. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The claim recites “ β m = 1, If labels are unique acc( f D m i+1 ( x 0 )), &If labels are unique ,” which provides conflicting definitions when the labels are unique and no definition when the labels are not unique. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim recites “ β m = 1, If labels are unique acc( f D m i+1 ( x 0 )), &If labels are unique ,” which provides conflicting definitions when the labels are unique and no definition when the labels are not unique . 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. Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention . The claims recite “ C i,j = w i T w j ||w i |||| w j || , ” then define only w i , i, and C. It is unclear what T, w i T , j, and w j represent . For the purposes of prior art and subject matter eligibility analyses Examiner assumes w j is vector of the weights connecting the previous layer nodes to the class node j, T represents a training iteration index , and w i T represents differing w i ’s during different iterations . Note that Examiner’s assumption does not imply support in the original disclosure. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The claim recites “Softmax=Dir(K,C),” then defines only Dir and C. It is unclear what K represents. For the purposes of prior art and subject matter eligibility analyses Examiner assumes K represents a label. Note that Examiner’s assumption does not imply support in the original disclosure. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The claim recites “ X i = m ∈ M S k X m i , ” then defines only M S k and k . It is unclear what X, i, and X i represent . For the purposes of prior art and subject matter eligibility analyses Examiner assumes X generally represents a cluster, i is an iteration parameter, and X i represents a particular cluster . Note that Examiner’s assumption does not imply support in the original disclosure. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The claim recites “ f G i+1 = m=1 M β m f D m i ( x 0 ) , where β m = 1, If labels are unique acc( f D m i+1 ( x 0 )), &If labels are unique , where acc( f D m i+1 ( x 0 )) , ” then defines only acc () . It is unclear what f , i, G , f G i+1 , M, D, D m i , f D m i , f D m i+1 , and x 0 represent. For the purposes of prior art and subject matter eligibility analyses Examiner assumes f represents the set of probabilities of a model, i represents a training iteration index , f G represents the set of probabilities of the global model , M represents the number of private models, D m represents a particular private model , f D represents the set of probabilities of a private model , and x 0 represents features of a public dataset . Note that Examiner’s assumption does not imply support in the original disclosure. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The claim recites “ β m = 1, If labels are unique acc( f D m i+1 ( x 0 )), &If labels are unique , ” which provides conflicting definitions when the labels are unique and no definition when the labels are not unique . For the purposes of prior art and subject matter eligibility analyses Examiner assumes β m = 1, If labels are unique acc( f D m i+1 ( x 0 )), &If labels are not unique . Note that Examiner’s assumption does not imply support in the original disclosure. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-18, 25, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As to claim 1 : Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03. Yes, the claim is to a process . Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “ generating a weights matrix using the received first set of ML model probabilities values and the received second set of ML model probabilities values ” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) . See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Yes, the limitation “ generating a third set of ML model probabilities values by sampling using the generated weights matrix ” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) . See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Yes, the limitation “ generating a first set of data impressions using the generated third set of ML model probabilities values, wherein the first set of data impressions includes data impressions for each of the one or more labels different from any label in the first set of labels ” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) . See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Yes, the limitation “ generating a second set of data impressions by clustering using the generated first set of data impressions for each of the one or more labels different from any label in the first set of labels ” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) . See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No, the limitation “ providing a first dataset including a first set of labels to a plurality of local computing devices including a first local computing device and a second local computing device ” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). No, the limitation “ receiving, from the first local computing device, a first set of ML model probabilities values [] ” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). No, the limitation “[a first set of ML model probabilities values] from training a first local ML model using the first set of labels ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (1) . No, the limitation “[a first set of ML model probabilities values] from training a first local ML model using the first set of labels ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process . See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (2) . No, the limitation “ receiving, from the second local computing device, a second set of ML model probabilities values ” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). No, the limitation “[a second set of ML model probabilities values] from training a second local ML model using the first set of labels and one or more labels different from any label in the first set of labels ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (1) . No, the limitation “[a second set of ML model probabilities values] from training a second local ML model using the first set of labels and one or more labels different from any label in the first set of labels ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process . See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (2) . No, the limitation “training a global ML model using the generated second set of data impressions ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (1) . No, the limitation “training a global ML model using the generated second set of data impressions ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process . See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (2) . The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. No, the limitation “ providing a first dataset including a first set of labels to a plurality of local computing devices including a first local computing device and a second local computing device ” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore th e additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network , which the courts have recognized as well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). No, the limitation “ receiving, from the first local computing device, a first set of ML model probabilities values [] ” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore th e additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network , which the courts have recognized as well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). No, the limitation “[a first set of ML model probabilities values] from training a first local ML model using the first set of labels ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (1) . No, the limitation “[a first set of ML model probabilities values] from training a first local ML model using the first set of labels ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process . See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (2) . No, the limitation “ receiving, from the second local computing device, a second set of ML model probabilities values ” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore th e additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network , which the courts have recognized as well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). No, the limitation “[a second set of ML model probabilities values] from training a second local ML model using the first set of labels and one or more labels different from any label in the first set of labels ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (1) . No, the limitation “[a second set of ML model probabilities values] from training a second local ML model using the first set of labels and one or more labels different from any label in the first set of labels ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process . See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (2) . No, the limitation “training a global ML model using the generated second set of data impressions ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (1) . No, the limitation “training a global ML model using the generated second set of data impressions ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process . See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (2) . The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claim 2 : Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03. Yes, the claim is to a process . Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “ generating a fourth set of ML model probabilities values by averaging using the first set of data impressions and the second set of data impressions for each label of the first set of labels and the one or more labels different from any label in the first set of labels ” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No, the limitation “ providing the generated fourth set of ML model probabilities values to the plurality of local computing devices, including the first local computing device and the second local computing device, for training local ML models ” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. No, the limitation “ providing the generated fourth set of ML model probabilities values to the plurality of local computing devices, including the first local computing device and the second local computing device, for training local ML models ” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore th e additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network , which the courts have recognized as well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claim 3 : Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03. Yes, the claim is to a process . Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “ wherein the received first set of ML model probabilities values and the received second set of ML model probabilities values are one of: Softmax values, sigmoid values, and Dirichlet values ” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated. Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated. As to claim 4 : Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03. Yes, the claim is to a process . Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “ wherein the generated weights matrix is a class similarity matrix and the class similarity matrix is generated according to: C i,j = w i T w j ||w i |||| w j || where w i is vector of the weights connecting the previous layer nodes to the class node i and C ∈ R K×K is the similarity matrix for K labels in the received first set of ML model probabilities values and the received second set of ML model probabilities values ” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated. Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated. As to claim 5 : Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03. Yes, the claim is to a process . Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “ wherein sampling using the generated weights matrix is according to: Softmax=Dir(K,C) where Dir is a Dirichlet distribution function and C is concentration parameter which controls the spread of the Softmax values over labels in the received first set of ML model probabilities values and the received second set of ML model probabilities values ” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated. Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated. As to claim 6 : Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03. Yes, the claim is to a process . Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “ wherein clustering using the generated first set of data impressions for each of the one or more labels different from any label in the first set of labels is according to a k-medoids clustering algorithm and uses the elbow method to determine the number of clusters k ” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated. Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated. As to claim 7 : Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03. Yes, the claim is to a process . Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “ wherein clustering using the generated first set of data impressions for each of the one or more labels different from any label in the first set of labels is according to: X i = m ∈ M S k X m i , where M S k is the set of users with label k ” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated. Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated. As to claim 8 : Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03. Yes, the claim is to a process . Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “ wherein generating the generated fourth set of model probabilities values is according to: f G i+1 = m=1 M β m f D m i ( x 0 ) , where β m = 1, If labels are unique acc( f D m i+1 ( x 0 )), &If labels are unique , where acc( f D m i+1 ( x 0 )) , wherein acc is accuracy function defined by the ratio of correctly classified samples to the total samples for the given local ML model ” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated. Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated. As to claim 9 : Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03. Yes, the claim is to a process . Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “ generating a second dataset including the first set of labels from the received first dataset and one or more labels different from any label in the first set of labels ” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) . See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Yes, the limitation “ generating a weights matrix using the one or more labels different from any label in the first set of labels ” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) . See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No, the limitation “ receiving a first dataset including a first set of labels ” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). No, the limitation “training a local ML model using the generated second dataset ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (1) . No, the limitation “training a local ML model using the generated second dataset ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process . See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (2) . No, the limitation “generating a set of ML model probabilities values by using the generated weights matrix and trained local ML model ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (1) . No, the limitation “generating a set of ML model probabilities values by using the generated weights matrix and trained local ML model ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process . See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (2) . No, the limitation “ providing the generated set of ML model probabilities values to a central computing device ” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. No, the limitation “ receiving a first dataset including a first set of labels ” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore th e additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network , which the courts have recognized as well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). No, the limitation “training a local ML model using the generated second dataset ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (1) . No, the limitation “training a local ML model using the generated second dataset ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process . See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (2) . No, the limitation “generating a set of ML model probabilities values by using the generated weights matrix and trained local ML model ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (1) . No, the limitation “generating a set of ML model probabilities values by using the generated weights matrix and trained local ML model ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process . See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (2) . No, the limitation “ providing the generated set of ML model probabilities values to a central computing device ” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore th e additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network , which the courts have recognized as well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claim 10 : Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03. Yes, the claim is to a process . Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No, the limitation “ wherein the received first data set is a public dataset and the generated second dataset is a private dataset ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. No, the limitation “ wherein the received first data set is a public dataset and the generated second dataset is a private dataset ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claim 11 : Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03. Yes, the claim is to a process . Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No, the limitation “ wherein the local ML model is one of: a convolutional neural network (CNN), a artificial neural network (ANN), and a recurrent neural network (RNN) ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. No, the limitation “ wherein the local ML model is one of: a convolutional neural network (CNN), a artificial neural network (ANN), and a recurrent neural network (RNN) ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claim 12 : Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03. Yes, the claim is to a process . Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “ [ a set of ML model probabilities values representing an ] averaging using a first set of data impressions and a second set of data impressions for each label of the first set of labels and the one or more labels different from any label in the first set of labels ” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No, the limitation “ receiving a set of ML model probabilities values from the central computing device ” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). No, the limitation “training the local ML model using the received set of ML model probabilities values ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (1) . No, the limitation “training the local ML model using the received set of ML model probabilities values ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process . See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (2) . The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. No, the limitation “ receiving a set of ML model probabilities values from the central computing device ” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore th e additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network , which the courts have recognized as well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). No, the limitation “training the local ML model using the received set of ML model probabilities values ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (1) . No, the limitation “training the local ML model using the received set of ML model probabilities values ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process . See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (2) . The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claim 13 : Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03. Yes, the claim is to a process . Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No, the limitation “ wherein the plurality of local computing devices, including the first local computing device and the second local computing device, comprises a plurality of radio network nodes which are configured to classify an alarm type using the trained local ML models ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. No, the limitation “ wherein the plurality of local computing devices, including the first local computing device and the second local computing device, comprises a plurality of radio network nodes which are configured to classify an alarm type using the trained local ML models ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claim 14 : Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03. Yes, the claim is to a process . Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No, the limitation “ wherein the plurality of local computing devices, including the first local computing device and the second local computing device, comprises a plurality of wireless sensor devices which are configured to classify an alarm type using the trained local ML models ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. No, the limitation “ wherein the plurality of local computing devices, including the first local computing device and the second local computing device, comprises a plurality of wireless sensor devices which are configured to classify an alarm type using the trained local ML models ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claim 15 : Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03. Yes, the claim is to a machine . Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “ generat e a weights matrix using the received first set of ML model probabilities values and the received second set of ML model probabilities values ” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) . See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Yes, the limitation “ generat e a third set of ML model probabilities values by sampling using the generated weights matrix ” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) . See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Yes, the limitation “ generat e a first set of data impressions using the generated third set of ML model probabilities values, wherein the first set of data impressions includes data impressions for each of the one or more labels different from any label in the first set of labels ” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) . See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Yes, the limitation “ generat e a second set of data impressions by clustering using the generated first set of data impressions for each of the one or more labels different from any label in the first set of labels ” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) . See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No, the limitation “ a memory ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). No, the limitation “ a processor coupled to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to ” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). No, the limitation “ provide a first dataset including a first set of labels to plurality of local computing devices including a first local computing device and a second local computing device ” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). No, the limitation “ receiv e , from the first local computing device, a first set of ML model probabilities values [] ” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). No, the limitation “[a first set of ML model probabilities values] from training a first local ML model using the first set of labels ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (1) . No, the limitation “[a first set of ML model probabilities values] from training a first local ML model using the first set of labels ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process . See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (2) . No, the limitation “ receiv e, from the second local computing device, a second set of ML model probabilities values ” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). No, the limitation “[a second set of ML model probabilities values] from training a second local ML model using the first set of labels and one or more labels different from any label in the first set of labels ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (1) . No, the limitation “[a second set of ML model probabilities values] from training a second local ML model using the first set of labels and one or more labels different from any label in the first set of labels ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process . See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (2) . No, the limitation “train a global ML model using the generated second set of data impressions ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (1) . No, the limitation “train a global ML model using the generated second set of data impressions ” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process . See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f) (2) . The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis