DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 8 September 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea because they are analogous to the invention in SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The human mind is equipped to do statistical analysis.
Applicant’s arguments that “training a language model” is not abstract is not responsive to the grounds of rejection. “Training a language model” is not considered to involve mathematical operations; it is mere instruction to apply because it doesn’t involve anything specifically whatsoever than the outcome of training the model.
Applicant argues that as an ordered combination, the invention improves the technical field of training machine learning models. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant describes the problem faced is that “developing and/or training machine learning systems may be time consuming and may include a large number of man hours and/or a great deal of professional expertise from data scientists and others,” Specification [0016], because “many applications for machine learning may be benefited by training such machine learning systems with large datasets which, in turn, may require more time, more professional expertise, and more money to apply feature engineering functions that may create more effective datasets that may be used to train the machine learning systems,” Specification [0019]. However, Applicant’s solution lies in the automation of performing feature engineering processes, Specification [0020], for which the post-solution training is not changed in any sense from that which is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Applicant’s reliance on McRO is not persuasive. Asking “what is the most likely mathematical operation between the year of a house remodel and the year the house was built” in order to add a missing construction date to training data when the date of the remodel is available is exactly the sort of question that a person, by the power of mental subjectivity of human reasoning, would ask themselves before using the operation to synthesize the missing data. Invoking machine learning as a tool to perform this process is mere automation. See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205, 1214 (“compare McRo, 837 F.3d at 1314-16 (finding eligibility of claims to use specific computer techniques different from those humans use on their own to produce natural-seeming lip motion for speech)”).
Although novel specific steps to create an enhanced dataset including added synthesized data are claimed, there is no indication that the synthesized data differs in any way from the synthesized data that would be produced by hiring more people. That training using consolidated data produced in the claimed manner results in a machine learning model that is “better at predicting and/or inferring characteristics associated with the new data,” Specification [0138], does not improve the technology of training when a machine learning model trained using the same consolidated data only consolidated using a “significant number of man hours” would be equally as good. Applicant is not arguing that the training is better, but that it is cheaper, because humans are replaced by computer automation. This is not an improvement to technology.
Applicant argues that Examiner has not met its burden in establishing that the additional elements are WURC. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The grounds of rejection contained a prima facie case for conventionality. Applicant is entitled to rebut this. However, arguing that the claims are novel and non-obvious is not grounds for them not being well-understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claims 1 and 11:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “obtaining a first dataset including a plurality of data subsets,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a data-gathering operation that can be done via interpersonal communication by someone merely handing input data written on a piece of paper to another. Cf. Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 8965 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2018). This limitation therefore falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II). As well, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “receiving” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to what queries and responses are on hand. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “generating a plurality of semantic similarity distributions corresponding to information between data subsets in the first dataset,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to how likely it is that the respective pairs of subsets are semantically similar and/or comparable, e.g., a first data subset corresponding to the square footage of a first floor of a house and a second data subset corresponding to the square footage of a second floor of a house are very likely to be semantically similar and/or comparable. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “determining one or more domains for the data subsets in the first dataset based on the plurality of sematic similarity distributions satisfying a threshold,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to the domain of possible relationships between the subsets, e.g., that there exists some relationship in the domain of mathematics between the square footage of a first floor of a house and a square footage of a second floor of a house that lends to deeper insights about a house. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “generating one or more question answer pairs corresponding to the one or more domains, wherein questions in the question answer pairs compares data subsets with a same domain,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., to form the question “to predict house price, what is the most likely mathematical operation between 1stFlrSF and 2ndFlrSF? Addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division?” its corresponding answer, “addition.” This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “extracting a value and a title from each of at least two data subsets in the first dataset,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “extracting” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to a value and title contained in the data subsets. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “determining a question based on the titles, the values, and a target variable inferred from data included in the first dataset,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment, based on the titles, value, and a target variable inferred from data in the dataset, to ask the question, “what is the most likely mathematical operations between the year of a house remodel and the year the house was built?.” This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “obtain a vector, the vector including a plurality of answers,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “obtaining” encompasses a person forming a judgment, based on the question, a plurality of possible answers to the question. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “determining based on the vector, an operation to perform using the data included in the at least two data subsets in the first dataset,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., as to an operation to perform on the year the house was built to obtain the year of a house remodel. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “synthesizing data related to the target variable by performing the determined operation using the data included in the at least two data subsets in the dataset,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “synthesizing” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., as to when a house was likely to have been remodeled based on the year it was built. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “generating a second dataset by adding the synthesized data as one or more new data subsets to the first dataset,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “adding” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., to record that a house with records of a remodeling in a given year but no records as to when it was built was built at the time given by the operation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “generating a plurality of comparison scores corresponding to data included in a plurality of pairs of data subsets in the second dataset, the plurality of comparison scores reflecting an overlap in similarity distributions between data included in one data subset and data included in another data subset in the plurality of pairs of data subsets in the second dataset,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming judgments as to the overlap in similarity distributions between two data subsets. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “filtering out of the second dataset, one or more pairs of data subsets based on one or more corresponding comparison scores of the plurality of comparison scores not satisfying a threshold,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “filtering” encompasses a person forming judgments as to which pairs have a score below the threshold. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “generating a third dataset by restoring, to the second dataset, one or more data subsets that were filtered out of the second dataset and were present in the first dataset,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” and “restoring” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., that an actual record filtered out should be restored. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely feature engineering. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The abstract idea of feature engineering is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “training a language model to determine relationships between data in the data subsets in the first dataset using the generated one or more question answer pairs,” is mere instruction to apply feature engineering because the outcome of training the language model to determine the relationships is recited without detail of how the model is trained to determine the relationships, and as such, is insignificant extra-solution activity as being tangentially related to the recited abstract idea of feature engineering. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “sending the question to the language model to obtain a vector, the vector including a plurality of answers,” is mere instruction to apply feature engineering because the outcome of obtaining a vector including a plurality of answers from a language model is recited without detail of how the language model generates the vector, and as such, is insignificant extra-solution activity as being tangentially related to the recited abstract idea of feature engineering. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “training one or more machine learning models using the third dataset to make predictions using new data,” is mere instruction to apply feature engineering because the outcome of training the model using the synthesized data is recited without detail of how the model is trained, and as such is insignificant extra-solution activity as insignificant application. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely automates the existing manual process of feature engineering. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are mere instructions to apply an exception or insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “training a language model to determine relationships between data in the data subsets in the first dataset using the generated one or more question answer pairs,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the language model is described, Specification [0071], as a commercially available product, and because training the model to determine relationships between data in the data subsets in the obtained dataset using one or more question answer pairs is recited generically, MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1) (“Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished “), and despite the lack of specific disclosed acts, steps, procedure or algorithm to accomplish the recited function, Specification ¶ [0071], MPEP §§ 2161.01, 2164.08, based on absence of evidence in the record to the contrary, MPEP § 2164.01(a), that Applicant’s reliance upon the skilled artisan’s knowledge to provide the necessary information to reduce the purely functional disclosure – reciting the outcome of “designing” a generic model “to receive the question synthesized and provide an answer” without any detail whatsoever regarding the steps that must be taken to “design” – to practice is sufficient for enablement, MPEP §§ 2164.01, 2164.05(b), and therefore this limitation is disclosed “in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a).” MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
The additional element, “sending the question to the language model to obtain a vector, the vector including a plurality of answers,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the language model is described, Specification [0071], as a commercially available product, and because the model obtaining the vector including a plurality of answers is recited generically, MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1) (“Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished “), and despite the lack of specific disclosed acts, steps, procedure or algorithm to accomplish the recited function, Specification ¶¶ [0084], [00146], MPEP §§ 2161.01, 2164.08, based on absence of evidence in the record to the contrary, MPEP § 2164.01(a), that Applicant’s reliance upon the skilled artisan’s knowledge to provide the necessary information to reduce the purely functional disclosure – reciting the outcome of a generic model “obtaining” a vector without any detail whatsoever regarding the steps that must be taken for the model to “obtain” the vector – to practice is sufficient for enablement, MPEP §§ 2164.01, 2164.05(b), and therefore this limitation is disclosed “in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a).” MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
The additional element, “training one or more machine learning models using the third dataset to make predictions using new data,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification [0019], as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), and because modifying the pipeline to train models using the dataset to make predictions is recited generically, MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1) (“Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished “), and despite the lack of specific disclosed acts, steps, procedure or algorithm to accomplish the recited function, Specification ¶ [0071], MPEP §§ 2161.01, 2164.08, based on absence of evidence in the record to the contrary, MPEP § 2164.01(a), that Applicant’s reliance upon the skilled artisan’s knowledge to provide the necessary information to reduce the purely functional disclosure – reciting the outcome of “training” a generic model “to make predictions using data” without any detail whatsoever regarding the steps that must be taken to “train” – to practice is sufficient for enablement, MPEP §§ 2164.01, 2164.05(b), and therefore this limitation is disclosed “in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a).” MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).. MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of feature engineering because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 2 and 12:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely feature engineering. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 3 and 13:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the one or more new data subsets are synthesized based on a level of confidence in the answer to the question satisfying a threshold,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “synthesizing” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., that the hypothesized relationships between the datasets is correct based on a preponderance of the evidence. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 4 and 14:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the determined operation includes one or more grouping operations, the grouping operations configured to analyze data combined from the at least two data subsets,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., as to which grouping operation to perform. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 5 and 15:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the grouping operations include one or more of a maximum, a minimum, a skew, a mean, a sum, a standard deviation, a unique value, or a most common value,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., as to which grouping operation including one or more of a maximum, a minimum, a skew, a mean, a sum, a standard deviation, a unique value, or a most common value to perform. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 6 and 16:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the determined operation includes one or more mathematical operations that, when performed on the values in the two data subsets in the dataset, generates new data corresponding to the dataset,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., as to which mathematical operation to perform. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 7 and 17:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the one or more mathematical operations include one or more of subtraction, addition, multiplication, or division,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., as to which mathematical operation including one or more of subtraction, addition, multiplication, or division to perform. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 8 and 18:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein each of the plurality of answers includes a probability distribution and the plurality of answers are either a yes or a no and the probability distribution indicates whether the yes or the no is a correct answer to the determined question,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “obtaining” encompasses a person forming a judgment, based on the question, as to a plurality of possible answers including a probability distribution indicating whether yes or no is a correct answer. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 9 and 19:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein each of the plurality of answers includes a probability distribution and the probability distributions includes a sentiment analysis indicating whether one or more of the plurality of answers is positive or negative,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “obtaining” encompasses a person forming a judgment, based on the question, as to a plurality of possible answers including a probability distribution including a sentiment analysis indicating whether one or more of the plurality of answers is positive or negative. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
Allowable Subject Matter
Although Jaimovitch-López generally teaches using language models in feature engineering, nothing in the prior art suggests using a language model trained using the claimed question and answer approach as opposed to any other approach to use a language model to automate feature engineering, so the particular way of automating the mental process using well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functionality is obvious only in hindsight: why not simply train the language model to directly synthesize the data?
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM SPIELER whose telephone number is (571)270-3883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11-3.
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, Ann Lo can be reached on 571-272-9767. 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.
WILLIAM SPIELER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2159
/WILLIAM SPIELER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights