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 Application filed on 6/20/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 10, and 17 are independent claims.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in this application because portions of figures 6-7 are too blurry to be readable. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
INFORMATION ON HOW TO EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES
Replacement Drawing Sheets
Drawing changes must be made by presenting replacement sheets which incorporate the desired changes and which comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.84. An explanation of the changes made must be presented either in the drawing amendments section, or remarks, section of the amendment paper. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). A replacement sheet must include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of the amended drawing(s) must not be labeled as “amended.” If the changes to the drawing figure(s) are not accepted by the examiner, applicant will be notified of any required corrective action in the next Office action. No further drawing submission will be required, unless applicant is notified.
Identifying indicia, if provided, should include the title of the invention, inventor’s name, and application number, or docket number (if any) if an application number has not been assigned to the application. If this information is provided, it must be placed on the front of each sheet and within the top margin.
Annotated Drawing Sheets
A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be submitted or required by the examiner. The annotated drawing sheet(s) must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings.
Timing of Corrections
Applicant is required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.85(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
If corrected drawings are required in a Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37), the new drawings MUST be filed within the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period set for reply in the “Notice of Allowability.” Extensions of time may NOT be obtained under the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 for filing the corrected drawings after the mailing of a Notice of Allowability.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 8-9 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 “the first feature data vector and the second feature data vector.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in parent claim 5. For the purposes of prior art and subject matter eligibility analyses Examiner assumes these claims depends from claim 7.
Claims 11-14 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 “The computing apparatus.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in parent claim 8. For the purposes of prior art and subject matter eligibility analyses Examiner assumes these claims depends from claim 10.
Claims 15-16 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 “The computing apparatus” and “the first feature data vector and the second feature data vector.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in parent claim 12. For the purposes of prior art and subject matter eligibility analyses Examiner assumes these claims depends from claim 14.
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 1-20 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 [] at least a first map representation of a first categorical input feature set for categorical data based on a first coding standard, wherein the first map representation maps presence of one or more first predictive codes for the first coding standard in the categorical data” 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 [] at least a second map representation of a second categorical input feature set for the categorical data based on a second coding standard, wherein the second map representation maps presence of one or more second predictive codes for the second coding standard in the categorical data” 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 prediction output based on the first map representation and the second map representation” 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 “[generating,] by one or more processors” 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,] by one or more processors” 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,] by the one or more processors” 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,] by the one or more processors” 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,] by the one or more processors and using at least one machine learning 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,] by the one or more processors and using at least one machine learning 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 “initiating, by the one or more processors, the performance of one or more prediction-based actions based on the prediction output” 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 “initiating, by the one or more processors, the performance of one or more prediction-based actions based on the prediction output” 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 “[generating,] by one or more processors” 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,] by one or more processors” 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,] by the one or more processors” 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,] by the one or more processors” 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,] by the one or more processors and using at least one machine learning 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,] by the one or more processors and using at least one machine learning 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 “initiating, by the one or more processors, the performance of one or more prediction-based actions based on the prediction output” 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 “initiating, by the one or more processors, the performance of one or more prediction-based actions based on the prediction output” 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 “wherein generating the first map representation comprises: configuring [] the first map representation to map a first number of occurrences in the categorical data for the one or more first predictive codes” 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 “[configuring,] by the one or more processors” 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 “[configuring,] by the one or more processors” 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 “[configuring,] by the one or more processors” 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 “[configuring,] by the one or more processors” 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 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 generating the first map representation comprises: configuring [] the first map representation to map a predicted cost for the one or more first predictive codes with respect to the first number of occurrences” 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 “[configuring,] by the one or more processors” 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 “[configuring,] by the one or more processors” 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 “[configuring,] by the one or more processors” 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 “[configuring,] by the one or more processors” 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 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 generating the second map representation comprises: configuring [] the second map representation to map a second number of occurrences in the categorical data for the one or more second predictive codes” 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 “[configuring,] by the one or more processors” 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 “[configuring,] by the one or more processors” 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 “[configuring,] by the one or more processors” 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 “[configuring,] by the one or more processors” 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 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 generating the second map representation comprises: configuring [] the second map representation to map a predicted cost for the one or more second predictive codes with respect to the second number of occurrences” 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 “[configuring,] by the one or more processors” 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 “[configuring,] by the one or more processors” 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 “[configuring,] by the one or more processors” 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 “[configuring,] by the one or more processors” 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 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 “configuring [] the first map representation as a first visual embedding that visually maps the presence of the one or more first predictive codes in the categorical data” 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 “configuring [] the second map representation as a second visual embedding that visually maps the presence of the one or more second predictive codes in the categorical data” 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 “[configuring,] by the one or more processors” 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 “[configuring,] by the one or more processors” 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 “[configuring,] by the one or more processors” 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 “[configuring,] by the one or more processors” 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 “[configuring,] by the one or more processors” 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 “[configuring,] by the one or more processors” 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 “[configuring,] by the one or more processors” 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 “[configuring,] by the one or more processors” 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 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 “generating [] a first feature data vector for the categorical data based on the first map representation” 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 feature data vector for the categorical data based on the second map representation” 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 “[generating,] by the one or more processors and using a first machine learning 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,] by the one or more processors and using a first machine learning 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 “[generating,] by the one or more processors and using a second machine learning 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,] by the one or more processors and using a second machine learning 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).
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 “[generating,] by the one or more processors and using a first machine learning 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,] by the one or more processors and using a first machine learning 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 “[generating,] by the one or more processors and using a second machine learning 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,] by the one or more processors and using a second machine learning 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).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 “generating [] the prediction output based on the first feature data vector and the second feature data vector” 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 “[generating,] by the one or more processors” 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,] by the one or more processors” 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 “[generating,] by the one or more processors” 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,] by the one or more processors” 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 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 “concatenating [] the first feature data vector and the second feature data vector to generate a concatenated feature data vector” 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 classification score for the concatenated feature data vector” 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 [] the prediction output based on the classification score” 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 “[concatenating,] by the one or more processors” 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 “[concatenating,] by the one or more processors” 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,] by the one or more processors” 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,] by the one or more processors” 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,] by the one or more processors” 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,] by the one or more processors” 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 “[concatenating,] by the one or more processors” 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 “[concatenating,] by the one or more processors” 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,] by the one or more processors” 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,] by the one or more processors” 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,] by the one or more processors” 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,] by the one or more processors” 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 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 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 “generate at least a first map representation of a first categorical input feature set for categorical data based on a first coding standard, wherein the first map representation maps presence of one or more first predictive codes for the first coding standard in the categorical data” 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 “generate at least a second map representation of a second categorical input feature set for the categorical data based on a second coding standard, wherein the second map representation maps presence of one or more second predictive codes for the second coding standard in the categorical data” 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 “generate [] a prediction output based on the first map representation and the second map representation” 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 computing apparatus comprising memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the 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 “[generate,] using at least one machine learning 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 “[generate,] using at least one machine learning 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 “initiate the performance of one or more prediction-based actions based on the prediction output” 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 “initiate the performance of one or more prediction-based actions based on the prediction output” 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 “a computing apparatus comprising memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the 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 § 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “[generate,] using at least one machine learning 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 “[generate,] using at least one machine learning 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 “initiate the performance of one or more prediction-based actions based on the prediction output” 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 “initiate the performance of one or more prediction-based actions based on the prediction output” 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 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 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 “configure the first map representation to map at least one of (i) first number of occurrences in the categorical data for the one or more first predictive codes and (ii) a predicted cost for the one or more first predictive codes with respect to the first number of occurrences” 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).
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 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 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 “configure the second map representation to map at least one of (i) a second number of occurrences in the categorical data for the one or more second predictive codes and (ii) a predicted cost for the one or more second predictive codes with respect to the second number of occurrences” 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).
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 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 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 “configure the first map representation as a first visual embedding that visually maps the presence of the one or more first predictive codes in the categorical data” 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 “configure the second map representation as a second visual embedding that visually maps the presence of the one or more second predictive codes in the categorical data” 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).
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 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 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 “generate [] a first feature data vector for the categorical data based on the first map representation” 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 “generate [] a second feature data vector for the categorical data based on the second map representation” 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 “[generate,] using a first machine learning 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 “[generate,] using a first machine learning 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 “[generate,] using a second machine learning 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 “[generate,] using a second machine learning 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).
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 “[generate,] using a first machine learning 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 “[generate,] using a first machine learning 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 “[generate,] using a second machine learning 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 “[generate,] using a second machine learning 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).
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 “generate the prediction output based on the first feature data vector and the second feature data vector” 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).
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 16:
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 “concatenate the first feature data vector and the second feature data vector to generate a concatenated feature data vector” 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 “generate a classification score for the concatenated feature data vector” 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 “generate the prediction output based on the classification score” 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).
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 17:
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 manufacture.
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 “generate at least a first map representation of a first categorical input feature set for categorical data based on a first coding standard, wherein the first map representation maps presence of one or more first predictive codes for the first coding standard in the categorical data” 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 “generate at least a second map representation of a second categorical input feature set for the categorical data based on a second coding standard, wherein the second map representation maps presence of one or more second predictive codes for the second coding standard in the categorical data” 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 “generate [] a prediction output based on the first map representation and the second map representation” 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 “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media including instructions” 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 “[generate,] using at least one machine learning 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 “[generate,] using at least one machine learning 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 “initiate the performance of one or more prediction-based actions based on the prediction output” 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 “initiate the performance of one or more prediction-based actions based on the prediction output” 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 “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media including instructions” 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).
No, the limitation “[generate,] using at least one machine learning 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 “[generate,] using at least one machine learning 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 “initiate the performance of one or more prediction-based actions based on the prediction output” 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 “initiate the performance of one or more prediction-based actions based on the prediction output” 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 18:
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 manufacture.
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 “configure the first map representation to map at least one of (i) first number of occurrences in the categorical data for the one or more first predictive codes and (ii) a predicted cost for the one or more first predictive codes with respect to the first number of occurrences” 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).
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 19:
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 manufacture.
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 “configure the second map representation to map at least one of (i) a second number of occurrences in the categorical data for the one or more second predictive codes and (ii) a predicted cost for the one or more second predictive codes with respect to the second number of occurrences” 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).
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 20:
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 manufacture.
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 “configure the first map representation as a first visual embedding that visually maps the presence of the one or more first predictive codes in the categorical data” 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 “configure the second map representation as a second visual embedding that visually maps the presence of the one or more second predictive codes in the categorical data” 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).
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 10-13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Selim et al. (US 2021/0133959 A1, hereinafter Selim).
As to independent claim 1, Selim discloses a computer-implemented method for generating a prediction output for categorical data using map representations of the categorical data, the computer-implemented method comprising:
generating, by one or more processors (“at least one processor,” paragraph 0005 line 2), at least a first map representation (“At step/operation 402, the feature extraction engine 111 generates one or more images based at least in part on the one or more-categorical input features,” paragraph 0067 lines 1-3) of a first categorical input feature set (“The process 400 begins at step/operation 401 when the feature extraction engine 111 of the predictive data analysis computing entity 106 obtains one or more categorical input features,” paragraph 0066 lines 1-4) for categorical data based on a first coding standard, wherein the first map representation maps presence of one or more first predictive codes for the first coding standard in the categorical data (“As depicted in the reserved-spatial-location division 600 of FIG. 6A, image region 611 is assigned to a principal diagnosis code categorical input feature,” paragraph 0070 lines 3-6);
generating, by the one or more processors (“at least one processor,” paragraph 0005 line 2), at least a second map representation (“At step/operation 402, the feature extraction engine 111 generates one or more images based at least in part on the one or more-categorical input features,” paragraph 0067 lines 1-3) of a second categorical input feature set (“The process 400 begins at step/operation 401 when the feature extraction engine 111 of the predictive data analysis computing entity 106 obtains one or more categorical input features,” paragraph 0066 lines 1-4) for the categorical data based on a second coding standard, wherein the second map representation maps presence of one or more second predictive codes for the second coding standard in the categorical data (“As depicted in the reserved-spatial-location division 600 of FIG. 6A, … image region 612 is assigned to a provider taxonomy categorical input feature,” paragraph 0070 lines 3-4, 6-7);
generating, by the one or more processors (“at least one processor,” paragraph 0005 line 2) and using at least one machine learning model, a prediction output based on the first map representation and the second map representation (“At step/operation 403, the predictive analysis engine 112 processes the one or images using an image-based machine learning model to generate one or more predictions,” paragraph 0095 lines 1-4); and
initiating, by the one or more processors, the performance of one or more prediction-based actions based on the prediction output (“At step/operation 404, the predictive analysis engine 112 performs a prediction-based actions based at least in part on the predictions generated in step/operation 403. Examples of prediction-based actions include transmission of communications, activation of alerts, automatic scheduling of appointments, etc. As a further example, the predictive analysis engine 112 may determine based at least in part on operational data associated with one or more medical institutions that the one or more medical institutions exhibit patterns of wasteful and/or fraudulent insurance claim filings,” paragraph 0098 lines 1-11).
As to dependent claim 2, Selim further discloses a method wherein generating the first map representation comprises: configuring, by the one or more processors, the first map representation to map a first number of occurrences in the categorical data for the one or more first predictive codes (“At step/operation 1704, the feature extraction engine 111 combines the one or more feature-based channels generated in step/operation 1702 and the one or more coordinate channels generated in step/operation 1703 to generate the feature-channel-based and coordinate-based reserved-spatial-location transformation of one or more categorical input features. An operational example of generating a feature-channel-based and coordinate-based reserved-spatial-location transformation 1801 is depicted in FIG. 18, which depicts merging two coordinate channels 1802 with N feature-based channels 1803 in order to generate the feature-channel-based and coordinate-based reserved-spatial-location transformation 1804 for one or more categorical input features,” paragraph 0092 lines 1-14).
As to dependent claim 4, Selim further discloses a method wherein generating the second map representation comprises: configuring, by the one or more processors, the second map representation to map a second number of occurrences in the categorical data for the one or more second predictive codes (“At step/operation 1704, the feature extraction engine 111 combines the one or more feature-based channels generated in step/operation 1702 and the one or more coordinate channels generated in step/operation 1703 to generate the feature-channel-based and coordinate-based reserved-spatial-location transformation of one or more categorical input features. An operational example of generating a feature-channel-based and coordinate-based reserved-spatial-location transformation 1801 is depicted in FIG. 18, which depicts merging two coordinate channels 1802 with N feature-based channels 1803 in order to generate the feature-channel-based and coordinate-based reserved-spatial-location transformation 1804 for one or more categorical input features,” paragraph 0092 lines 1-14).
As to dependent claim 6, Selim further discloses a method comprising:
configuring, by the one or more processors, the first map representation as a first visual embedding that visually maps the presence of the one or more first predictive codes in the categorical data (“An operational example of a scalar reserved-spatial-location image 2002 is depicted in FIG. 20. The scalar image value of each character region (e.g., character regions 2011 and 2012) in the scalar reserved-spatial-location image 2002 is determined based at least in part on a value of a character associated with the particular character region. For example, as depicted in FIG. 20, the scalar image value of character region 2011 in the scalar reserved-spatial-location image 2002 is determined based at least in part on the value of the character “M” 2021 from the reserved-spatial location image 2001, while the scalar image value of character region 2012 in the scalar reserved-spatial-location image 2001 is determined based at least in part on the value of the character “7” 2122 from the reserved-spatial location image 2001,” paragraph 0094 lines 1-14); and
configuring, by the one or more processors, the second map representation as a second visual embedding that visually maps the presence of the one or more second predictive codes in the categorical data (“An operational example of a scalar reserved-spatial-location image 2002 is depicted in FIG. 20. The scalar image value of each character region (e.g., character regions 2011 and 2012) in the scalar reserved-spatial-location image 2002 is determined based at least in part on a value of a character associated with the particular character region. For example, as depicted in FIG. 20, the scalar image value of character region 2011 in the scalar reserved-spatial-location image 2002 is determined based at least in part on the value of the character “M” 2021 from the reserved-spatial location image 2001, while the scalar image value of character region 2012 in the scalar reserved-spatial-location image 2001 is determined based at least in part on the value of the character “7” 2122 from the reserved-spatial location image 2001,” paragraph 0094 lines 1-14).
As to independent claim 10, Selim discloses a computing apparatus comprising memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory (“at least one processor and at least one memory,” paragraph 0005 line 2), the one or more processors configured to:
generate at least a first map representation (“At step/operation 402, the feature extraction engine 111 generates one or more images based at least in part on the one or more-categorical input features,” paragraph 0067 lines 1-3) of a first categorical input feature set (“The process 400 begins at step/operation 401 when the feature extraction engine 111 of the predictive data analysis computing entity 106 obtains one or more categorical input features,” paragraph 0066 lines 1-4) for categorical data based on a first coding standard, wherein the first map representation maps presence of one or more first predictive codes for the first coding standard in the categorical data (“As depicted in the reserved-spatial-location division 600 of FIG. 6A, image region 611 is assigned to a principal diagnosis code categorical input feature,” paragraph 0070 lines 3-6);
generate at least a second map representation (“At step/operation 402, the feature extraction engine 111 generates one or more images based at least in part on the one or more-categorical input features,” paragraph 0067 lines 1-3) of a second categorical input feature set (“The process 400 begins at step/operation 401 when the feature extraction engine 111 of the predictive data analysis computing entity 106 obtains one or more categorical input features,” paragraph 0066 lines 1-4) for the categorical data based on a second coding standard, wherein the second map representation maps presence of one or more second predictive codes for the second coding standard in the categorical data (“As depicted in the reserved-spatial-location division 600 of FIG. 6A, … image region 612 is assigned to a provider taxonomy categorical input feature,” paragraph 0070 lines 3-4, 6-7);
generate, using at least one machine learning model, a prediction output based on the first map representation and the second map representation (“At step/operation 403, the predictive analysis engine 112 processes the one or images using an image-based machine learning model to generate one or more predictions,” paragraph 0095 lines 1-4); and
initiate the performance of one or more prediction-based actions based on the prediction output (“At step/operation 404, the predictive analysis engine 112 performs a prediction-based actions based at least in part on the predictions generated in step/operation 403. Examples of prediction-based actions include transmission of communications, activation of alerts, automatic scheduling of appointments, etc. As a further example, the predictive analysis engine 112 may determine based at least in part on operational data associated with one or more medical institutions that the one or more medical institutions exhibit patterns of wasteful and/or fraudulent insurance claim filings,” paragraph 0098 lines 1-11).
As to dependent claim 11, Selim further discloses a computing apparatus wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: configure the first map representation to map at least one of (i) first number of occurrences in the categorical data for the one or more first predictive codes (“At step/operation 1704, the feature extraction engine 111 combines the one or more feature-based channels generated in step/operation 1702 and the one or more coordinate channels generated in step/operation 1703 to generate the feature-channel-based and coordinate-based reserved-spatial-location transformation of one or more categorical input features. An operational example of generating a feature-channel-based and coordinate-based reserved-spatial-location transformation 1801 is depicted in FIG. 18, which depicts merging two coordinate channels 1802 with N feature-based channels 1803 in order to generate the feature-channel-based and coordinate-based reserved-spatial-location transformation 1804 for one or more categorical input features,” paragraph 0092 lines 1-14) and (ii) a predicted cost for the one or more first predictive codes with respect to the first number of occurrences.
As to dependent claim 12, Selim further discloses a computing apparatus wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: configure the second map representation to map at least one of (i) a second number of occurrences in the categorical data for the one or more second predictive codes and (ii) a predicted cost for the one or more second predictive codes with respect to the second number of occurrences (“At step/operation 1704, the feature extraction engine 111 combines the one or more feature-based channels generated in step/operation 1702 and the one or more coordinate channels generated in step/operation 1703 to generate the feature-channel-based and coordinate-based reserved-spatial-location transformation of one or more categorical input features. An operational example of generating a feature-channel-based and coordinate-based reserved-spatial-location transformation 1801 is depicted in FIG. 18, which depicts merging two coordinate channels 1802 with N feature-based channels 1803 in order to generate the feature-channel-based and coordinate-based reserved-spatial-location transformation 1804 for one or more categorical input features,” paragraph 0092 lines 1-14).
As to dependent claim 13, Selim further discloses a computing apparatus wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
configure the first map representation as a first visual embedding that visually maps the presence of the one or more first predictive codes in the categorical data (“An operational example of a scalar reserved-spatial-location image 2002 is depicted in FIG. 20. The scalar image value of each character region (e.g., character regions 2011 and 2012) in the scalar reserved-spatial-location image 2002 is determined based at least in part on a value of a character associated with the particular character region. For example, as depicted in FIG. 20, the scalar image value of character region 2011 in the scalar reserved-spatial-location image 2002 is determined based at least in part on the value of the character “M” 2021 from the reserved-spatial location image 2001, while the scalar image value of character region 2012 in the scalar reserved-spatial-location image 2001 is determined based at least in part on the value of the character “7” 2122 from the reserved-spatial location image 2001,” paragraph 0094 lines 1-14); and
configure the second map representation as a second visual embedding that visually maps the presence of the one or more second predictive codes in the categorical data (“An operational example of a scalar reserved-spatial-location image 2002 is depicted in FIG. 20. The scalar image value of each character region (e.g., character regions 2011 and 2012) in the scalar reserved-spatial-location image 2002 is determined based at least in part on a value of a character associated with the particular character region. For example, as depicted in FIG. 20, the scalar image value of character region 2011 in the scalar reserved-spatial-location image 2002 is determined based at least in part on the value of the character “M” 2021 from the reserved-spatial location image 2001, while the scalar image value of character region 2012 in the scalar reserved-spatial-location image 2001 is determined based at least in part on the value of the character “7” 2122 from the reserved-spatial location image 2001,” paragraph 0094 lines 1-14).
As to independent claim 17, Selim discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media including instructions (“at least one memory including computer program code,” paragraph 0005 lines 2-3) that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
generate at least a first map representation (“At step/operation 402, the feature extraction engine 111 generates one or more images based at least in part on the one or more-categorical input features,” paragraph 0067 lines 1-3) of a first categorical input feature set (“The process 400 begins at step/operation 401 when the feature extraction engine 111 of the predictive data analysis computing entity 106 obtains one or more categorical input features,” paragraph 0066 lines 1-4) for categorical data based on a first coding standard, wherein the first map representation maps presence of one or more first predictive codes for the first coding standard in the categorical data (“As depicted in the reserved-spatial-location division 600 of FIG. 6A, image region 611 is assigned to a principal diagnosis code categorical input feature,” paragraph 0070 lines 3-6);
generate at least a second map representation (“At step/operation 402, the feature extraction engine 111 generates one or more images based at least in part on the one or more-categorical input features,” paragraph 0067 lines 1-3) of a second categorical input feature set (“The process 400 begins at step/operation 401 when the feature extraction engine 111 of the predictive data analysis computing entity 106 obtains one or more categorical input features,” paragraph 0066 lines 1-4) for the categorical data based on a second coding standard, wherein the second map representation maps presence of one or more second predictive codes for the second coding standard in the categorical data (“As depicted in the reserved-spatial-location division 600 of FIG. 6A, … image region 612 is assigned to a provider taxonomy categorical input feature,” paragraph 0070 lines 3-4, 6-7);
generate, using at least one machine learning model, a prediction output based on the first map representation and the second map representation (“At step/operation 403, the predictive analysis engine 112 processes the one or images using an image-based machine learning model to generate one or more predictions,” paragraph 0095 lines 1-4); and
initiate the performance of one or more prediction-based actions based on the prediction output (“At step/operation 404, the predictive analysis engine 112 performs a prediction-based actions based at least in part on the predictions generated in step/operation 403. Examples of prediction-based actions include transmission of communications, activation of alerts, automatic scheduling of appointments, etc. As a further example, the predictive analysis engine 112 may determine based at least in part on operational data associated with one or more medical institutions that the one or more medical institutions exhibit patterns of wasteful and/or fraudulent insurance claim filings,” paragraph 0098 lines 1-11).
As to dependent claim 18, Selim further discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to: configure the first map representation to map at least one of (i) first number of occurrences in the categorical data for the one or more first predictive codes (“At step/operation 1704, the feature extraction engine 111 combines the one or more feature-based channels generated in step/operation 1702 and the one or more coordinate channels generated in step/operation 1703 to generate the feature-channel-based and coordinate-based reserved-spatial-location transformation of one or more categorical input features. An operational example of generating a feature-channel-based and coordinate-based reserved-spatial-location transformation 1801 is depicted in FIG. 18, which depicts merging two coordinate channels 1802 with N feature-based channels 1803 in order to generate the feature-channel-based and coordinate-based reserved-spatial-location transformation 1804 for one or more categorical input features,” paragraph 0092 lines 1-14) and (ii) a predicted cost for the one or more first predictive codes with respect to the first number of occurrences.
As to dependent claim 19, Selim further discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to: configure the second map representation to map at least one of (i) a second number of occurrences in the categorical data for the one or more second predictive codes (“At step/operation 1704, the feature extraction engine 111 combines the one or more feature-based channels generated in step/operation 1702 and the one or more coordinate channels generated in step/operation 1703 to generate the feature-channel-based and coordinate-based reserved-spatial-location transformation of one or more categorical input features. An operational example of generating a feature-channel-based and coordinate-based reserved-spatial-location transformation 1801 is depicted in FIG. 18, which depicts merging two coordinate channels 1802 with N feature-based channels 1803 in order to generate the feature-channel-based and coordinate-based reserved-spatial-location transformation 1804 for one or more categorical input features,” paragraph 0092 lines 1-14) and (ii) a predicted cost for the one or more second predictive codes with respect to the second number of occurrences.
As to dependent claim 20, Selim further discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to:
configure the first map representation as a first visual embedding that visually maps the presence of the one or more first predictive codes in the categorical data (“An operational example of a scalar reserved-spatial-location image 2002 is depicted in FIG. 20. The scalar image value of each character region (e.g., character regions 2011 and 2012) in the scalar reserved-spatial-location image 2002 is determined based at least in part on a value of a character associated with the particular character region. For example, as depicted in FIG. 20, the scalar image value of character region 2011 in the scalar reserved-spatial-location image 2002 is determined based at least in part on the value of the character “M” 2021 from the reserved-spatial location image 2001, while the scalar image value of character region 2012 in the scalar reserved-spatial-location image 2001 is determined based at least in part on the value of the character “7” 2122 from the reserved-spatial location image 2001,” paragraph 0094 lines 1-14); and
configure the second map representation as a second visual embedding that visually maps the presence of the one or more second predictive codes in the categorical data (“An operational example of a scalar reserved-spatial-location image 2002 is depicted in FIG. 20. The scalar image value of each character region (e.g., character regions 2011 and 2012) in the scalar reserved-spatial-location image 2002 is determined based at least in part on a value of a character associated with the particular character region. For example, as depicted in FIG. 20, the scalar image value of character region 2011 in the scalar reserved-spatial-location image 2002 is determined based at least in part on the value of the character “M” 2021 from the reserved-spatial location image 2001, while the scalar image value of character region 2012 in the scalar reserved-spatial-location image 2001 is determined based at least in part on the value of the character “7” 2122 from the reserved-spatial location image 2001,” paragraph 0094 lines 1-14).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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.
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 5, 7-9, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Selim in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0343411 A1, hereinafter Zhang).
As to dependent claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Selim does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein generating the first map representation comprises: configuring, by the one or more processors, the first map representation to map a predicted cost for the one or more first predictive codes with respect to the first number of occurrences.
Zhang teaches a method wherein generating the first map representation comprises: configuring, by the one or more processors, the first map representation to map a predicted cost for the one or more first predictive codes with respect to the first number of occurrences (“Cost in outpatient visit (RMB),” page 38 table 16 columns 6-7).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prediction of Selim to comprise the cost of Zhang. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely predicting a cost (“Cost in outpatient visit (RMB),” Zhang page 38 table 16 columns 6-7). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Selim does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein generating the second map representation comprises: configuring, by the one or more processors, the second map representation to map a predicted cost for the one or more second predictive codes with respect to the second number of occurrences.
Zhang teaches a method wherein generating the second map representation comprises: configuring, by the one or more processors, the second map representation to map a predicted cost for the one or more second predictive codes with respect to the second number of occurrences (“Cost in outpatient visit (RMB),” page 38 table 16 columns 6-7).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prediction of Selim to comprise the cost of Zhang. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely predicting a cost (“Cost in outpatient visit (RMB),” Zhang page 38 table 16 columns 6-7). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Selim does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein generating the predicted output comprises:
generating, by the one or more processors and using a first machine learning model, a first feature data vector for the categorical data based on the first map representation; and
generating, by the one or more processors and using a second machine learning model, a second feature data vector for the categorical data based on the second map representation.
Zhang teaches a method wherein generating the predicted output comprises:
generating, by the one or more processors and using a first machine learning model, a first feature data vector for the categorical data based on the first map representation (“extracted words were then fed into a word embedding layer to convert text into 1×100 vector dimensions,” paragraph 0200 lines 14-16); and
generating, by the one or more processors and using a second machine learning model, a second feature data vector for the categorical data based on the second map representation (“extracted words were then fed into a word embedding layer to convert text into 1×100 vector dimensions,” paragraph 0200 lines 14-16).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the map representation of Selim to comprise the feature data vector of Zhang. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely processing the features as vectors (“extracted words were then fed into a word embedding layer to convert text into 1×100 vector dimensions,” Zhang paragraph 0200 lines 14-16). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Selim/Zhang further teaches a method comprising generating, by the one or more processors, the prediction output based on the first feature data vector and the second feature data vector (“To gain insight into how the diagnostic system generated a predicted diagnosis, we identified key clinical features driving the diagnosis prediction. For each feature, we identified what category of EHR clinical data it was derived from,” Zhang paragraph 0146 lines 1-5).
As to dependent claim 9, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Selim/Zhang further teaches a method comprising:
concatenating, by the one or more processors, the first feature data vector and the second feature data vector to generate a concatenated feature data vector (“the computer was still able to detect trends in clinical features to generate a relatively sensible grouping structure (FIG. 1),” Zhang paragraph 0132 lines 3-5);
generating, by the one or more processors, a classification score for the concatenated feature data vector (“the computer clustered together diagnoses with related ICD-10 codes, illustrating that it was able to detect trends in clinical features that align with a human-defined classification system,” Zhang paragraph 0132 lines 6-9); and
generating, by the one or more processors, the prediction output based on the classification score (“To gain insight into how the diagnostic system generated a predicted diagnosis, we identified key clinical features driving the diagnosis prediction. For each feature, we identified what category of EHR clinical data it was derived from,” Zhang paragraph 0146 lines 1-5).
As to dependent claim 14, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated.
Selim does not appear to expressly teach a computing apparatus wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
generate, using a first machine learning model, a first feature data vector for the categorical data based on the first map representation; and
generate, using a second machine learning model, a second feature data vector for the categorical data based on the second map representation.
Zhang teaches a computing apparatus wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
generate, using a first machine learning model, a first feature data vector for the categorical data based on the first map representation (“extracted words were then fed into a word embedding layer to convert text into 1×100 vector dimensions,” paragraph 0200 lines 14-16); and
generate, using a second machine learning model, a second feature data vector for the categorical data based on the second map representation (“extracted words were then fed into a word embedding layer to convert text into 1×100 vector dimensions,” paragraph 0200 lines 14-16).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the map representation of Selim to comprise the feature data vector of Zhang. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely processing the features as vectors (“extracted words were then fed into a word embedding layer to convert text into 1×100 vector dimensions,” Zhang paragraph 0200 lines 14-16). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. Selim/Zhang further teaches a computing apparatus wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: generate the prediction output based on the first feature data vector and the second feature data vector (“To gain insight into how the diagnostic system generated a predicted diagnosis, we identified key clinical features driving the diagnosis prediction. For each feature, we identified what category of EHR clinical data it was derived from,” Zhang paragraph 0146 lines 1-5).
As to dependent claim 16, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. Selim/Zhang further teaches a computing apparatus wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
concatenate the first feature data vector and the second feature data vector to generate a concatenated feature data vector (“the computer was still able to detect trends in clinical features to generate a relatively sensible grouping structure (FIG. 1),” Zhang paragraph 0132 lines 3-5);
generate a classification score for the concatenated feature data vector (“the computer clustered together diagnoses with related ICD-10 codes, illustrating that it was able to detect trends in clinical features that align with a human-defined classification system,” Zhang paragraph 0132 lines 6-9); and
generate the prediction output based on the classification score (“To gain insight into how the diagnostic system generated a predicted diagnosis, we identified key clinical features driving the diagnosis prediction. For each feature, we identified what category of EHR clinical data it was derived from,” Zhang paragraph 0146 lines 1-5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 2022/0358395 A1 disclosing cross-entity machine learning
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e-mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan Barrett whose telephone number is 571 270 3311. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am to 5:30pm.
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 Michelle Bechtold can be reached at 571 431 0762. 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.
/Ryan Barrett/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148