DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 6/20/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 2, and 15 are independent claims.
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.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If itis determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant is advised to consult the 2019 PEG for more details of the analysis.
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Claim 1 is drawn to a system, claim 2-14 are drawn to a method and claims 15-20 are drawn to non-transitory computer readable media, therefore each of these claim groups falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of mater; Step 1). Nonetheless, the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significant more (Step 2A, see below). Independent claims 2 and 15 are non-verbatim but similar in claim construction, hence share the same rationale that the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows:
As to claim 1:
Claim 1 recites “A system for updating machine learning models, the system comprising: at least one processor, at least one memory, and computer-readable media having computer-executable instructions stored thereon, the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, causing the system to perform operations comprising: inputting, into a machine learning model, a dataset comprising a plurality of entries with each entry comprising a corresponding plurality of features to obtain a plurality of feature impact parameters indicating a relative impact of each feature on a prediction for a corresponding entry of the plurality of entries, wherein the machine learning model is trained to generate predictions for entries based on corresponding features; generating, based on the plurality of feature impact parameters, a corresponding sparsity metric for each entry, wherein each sparsity metric indicates a measure of a number of features used to generate a corresponding prediction; retrieving a sparsity threshold for assigning weights to the plurality of entries; generating an updated dataset based on assigning, to each entry of the plurality of entries within the dataset, a corresponding weight, wherein each weight is determined based on a relation of the corresponding sparsity metric to the sparsity threshold; inputting, into the machine learning model, the updated dataset to retrain the machine learning model based on the corresponding weights, wherein a training routine adjusts connection weights of the machine learning model according to the corresponding weights; in response to determining that an accuracy of the machine learning model does not meet an accuracy threshold: generating a new updated dataset based on assigning, to each entry of the plurality of entries within the dataset, an adjusted corresponding weight; and inputting, into the machine learning model, the new updated dataset to update the machine learning model based on the adjusted corresponding weights; and in response to determining that a new accuracy of the machine learning model meets the accuracy threshold, generating an indication of the new accuracy.“
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, based on the plurality of feature impact parameters, a corresponding sparsity metric for each entry, wherein each sparsity metric indicates a measure of a number of features used to generate a corresponding prediction” is the abstract idea of a mathematical relationship, as directed to “a mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).
Yes, the limitation “obtain a plurality of feature impact parameters indicating a relative impact of each feature on a prediction for a corresponding entry of the plurality of entries, wherein … is trained to generate predictions for entries based on corresponding features” 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 “retrieving a sparsity threshold for assigning weights to the plurality of entries” 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 an updated dataset based on assigning, to each entry of the plurality of entries within the dataset, a corresponding weight, wherein each weight is determined based on a relation of the corresponding sparsity metric to the sparsity threshold” 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 “in response to determining that an accuracy… does not meet an accuracy threshold: generating a new updated dataset based on assigning, to each entry of the plurality of entries within the dataset, an adjusted corresponding weight” 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, this limitation “a machine learning model” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “a machine learning model” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “at least one processor, at least one memory, and computer-readable media having computer-executable instructions stored thereon, the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, causing the system to perform operations” 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, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, this limitation “inputting… a dataset comprising a plurality of entries with each entry comprising a corresponding plurality of features to”, “in response to determining that a new accuracy of the machine learning model meets the accuracy threshold, generating an indication of the new accuracy” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “inputting”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, This limitation ““inputting, into the machine learning model, the updated dataset to retrain the machine learning model based on the corresponding weights, wherein a training routine adjusts connection weights of the machine learning model according to the corresponding weights” and “inputting, into the machine learning model, the new updated dataset to update the machine learning model based on the adjusted corresponding weights” is merely a post-solution step and as such is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
First, the additional elements directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed limitations generally link the judicial exception to the technology environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Second, the additional elements mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the limitations generally apply the use of a generic computer and/or process with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
No, this limitation “a machine learning model” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “a machine learning model” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “at least one processor, at least one memory, and computer-readable media having computer-executable instructions stored thereon, the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, causing the system to perform operations” 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, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, this limitation “inputting… a dataset comprising a plurality of entries with each entry comprising a corresponding plurality of features to”, “in response to determining that a new accuracy of the machine learning model meets the accuracy threshold, generating an indication of the new accuracy” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “inputting”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network / performing repetitive calculations / electronic recordkeeping / storing and retrieving information in memory / electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
No, This limitation ““inputting… the updated dataset to retrain … based on the corresponding weights, wherein a training routine adjusts connection weights … according to the corresponding weights” and “inputting… the new updated dataset to update … based on the adjusted corresponding weights” is merely a post-solution step and as such is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not eligible subject matter.
Therefore, in examining elements as recited by the limitations individually and as an ordered combination, as a whole the independent claim limitations do not recite what have the courts have identified as “significantly more”.
As to claim 2 (claim 15 recites similar subject matter, hence will be rejected under the same rational as claim 2):
Claim 2 recites “A method comprising:
inputting, into a machine learning model, a dataset comprising a plurality of entries with each entry comprising a plurality of features to obtain a plurality of feature impact parameters indicating a relative impact of each feature of the plurality of features;
generating, using the plurality of feature impact parameters, a sparsity metric for each entry, wherein each sparsity metric indicates a measure of a number of features used to generate a corresponding prediction;
retrieving a sparsity threshold for assigning weights to the plurality of entries; generating an updated dataset based on assigning, to each entry of the plurality of entries within the dataset, a corresponding weight, wherein each corresponding weight is determined based on a relation of the sparsity metric to the sparsity threshold;
inputting, into the machine learning model, the updated dataset to update the machine learning model based on the corresponding weights, wherein the machine learning model is updated in accordance with the corresponding weights; and
in response to determining that an accuracy metric of the machine learning model meets an accuracy threshold, generating an indication of the accuracy metric.“
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, using the plurality of feature impact parameters, a sparsity metric for each entry, wherein each sparsity metric indicates a measure of a number of features used to generate a corresponding prediction” is the abstract idea of a mathematical relationship, as directed to “a mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).
Yes, the limitation “…obtain a plurality of feature impact parameters indicating a relative impact of each feature of the plurality of features” 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 “retrieving a sparsity threshold for assigning weights to the plurality of entries” 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 an updated dataset based on assigning, to each entry of the plurality of entries within the dataset, a corresponding weight, wherein each weight is determined based on a relation of the corresponding sparsity metric to the sparsity threshold” 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, this limitation “a machine learning model” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “a machine learning model” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “inputting, … a dataset comprising a plurality of entries with each entry comprising a plurality of features to…” and “in response to determining that an accuracy metric of … meets an accuracy threshold, generating an indication of the accuracy metric” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “inputting”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, This limitation “inputting,… the updated dataset to update … based on the corresponding weights, wherein … is updated in accordance with the corresponding weights” is merely a post-solution step and as such is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
First, the additional elements directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed limitations generally link the judicial exception to the technology environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Second, the additional elements mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the limitations generally apply the use of a generic computer and/or process with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
No, this limitation “a machine learning model” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “a machine learning model” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “inputting, … a dataset comprising a plurality of entries with each entry comprising a plurality of features to…” and “in response to determining that an accuracy metric of … meets an accuracy threshold, generating an indication of the accuracy metric” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “inputting”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network / performing repetitive calculations / electronic recordkeeping / storing and retrieving information in memory / electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
No, This limitation “inputting,… the updated dataset to update … based on the corresponding weights, wherein … is updated in accordance with the corresponding weights” is merely a post-solution step and as such is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not eligible subject matter.
Therefore, in examining elements as recited by the limitations individually and as an ordered combination, as a whole the independent claim limitations do not recite what have the courts have identified as “significantly more”.
Furthermore, regarding dependent claims 3-14 which are dependent on claim 2, claims 16-20 which are dependent on claim 15, the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more as highlighted below in the claim limitations by evaluating the claim limitations under Step 2A and 2B:
Dependent claim 3
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “determining, for each sparsity metric, a distance between the sparsity metric and the sparsity threshold; and generating a weight for a corresponding entry based on the distance” 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 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 4
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “extracting the sparsity metric of each entry” and “assigning the corresponding weights to the plurality of entries by assigning one or more higher weights to one or more first entries having one or more first sparsity metrics that do not meet the sparsity threshold and by assigning one or more lower weights to one or more second entries having one or more second sparsity metrics that meet the sparsity threshold” are 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 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No, this limitation “accessing each entry of the plurality of entries within the dataset” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “accessing”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No, this limitation “accessing each entry of the plurality of entries within the dataset” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “accessing”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network / performing repetitive calculations / electronic recordkeeping / storing and retrieving information in memory / electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
Dependent claim 5
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: 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 new updated dataset based on assigning, to each entry of the plurality of entries within the dataset, an adjusted corresponding weight” and “in response to determining that a new accuracy metric of the machine learning model meets the accuracy threshold, generating a new indication of the new accuracy metric” are 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 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No, this limitation “inputting … the dataset to update the machine learning model based on the adjusted corresponding weights” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “inputting”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No, this limitation “inputting … the dataset to update the machine learning model based on the adjusted corresponding weights” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “inputting”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network / performing repetitive calculations / electronic recordkeeping / storing and retrieving information in memory / electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
Dependent claim 6
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “wherein assigning the adjusted corresponding weight for each entry of the plurality of entries within the dataset comprises decreasing the one or more higher weights and increasing the one or more lower weights, wherein the one or more higher weights remain higher than the one or more lower weights.” 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 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claims 7 and 16
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “determining a feature impact threshold for assessing which features of the plurality of features have contributed to each prediction generated by the machine learning model for each entry; and generating, using the plurality of feature impact parameters and the feature impact threshold, the sparsity metric for each entry, wherein the sparsity metric indicates which features of the plurality of features have relative impacts that meet the feature impact threshold for the entry.” 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 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claims 8 and 17
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “determining whether a feature impact parameter for each feature associated with the entry meets the feature impact threshold; based on a first subset of the plurality of feature impact parameters for a first subset of features associated with the entry meeting the feature impact threshold, determining that the first subset of features contributes to a prediction generated by the machine learning model for the entry; based on a second subset of the plurality of feature impact parameters for a second subset of features associated with the entry not meeting the feature impact threshold, determining that the second subset of features does not contribute to the prediction; and generating the sparsity metric for the entry to include the first subset of features and exclude the second subset of features.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 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claims 9 and 18
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “determining the sparsity threshold based on a desired number of features to be included within the first subset of features for the plurality of entries” 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 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 10
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “determining a lower sparsity threshold for weighting each entry based on a lower desired number of features to be included within the first subset of features for the plurality of entries.” 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 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claims 11 and 19
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: 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 new updated dataset based on assigning, to each entry of the plurality of entries within the dataset, a new corresponding weight, wherein each new corresponding weight is determined based on a new relation of the sparsity metric to the lower sparsity threshold; inputting, into the machine learning model, the new updated dataset to update the machine learning model based on the new corresponding weights, wherein the updated machine learning model is associated with a new accuracy metric; determining a difference between the accuracy metric and the new accuracy metric; and in response to determining that the difference does not meet a difference threshold, generating the new accuracy metric” 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 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? NO.
Dependent claims 12 and 20
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “determining a higher sparsity threshold for weighting each entry based on a higher desired number of features to be included within the first subset of features for the plurality of entries; generating a new updated dataset based on assigning, to each entry of the plurality of entries within the dataset, a new corresponding weight, wherein each new corresponding weight is determined based on a new relation of the sparsity metric to the higher sparsity threshold; inputting, into the machine learning model, the new updated dataset to update the machine learning model based on the new corresponding weights, wherein the updated machine learning model is associated with a new accuracy metric; determining a difference between the accuracy metric and the new accuracy metric; and in response to determining that the difference meets a difference threshold, generating the new accuracy metric.” 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 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 13
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “determining, for each entry, which features of the plurality of features have relative impacts on the corresponding prediction that meet a feature impact threshold; and based on one or more features having respective relative impacts that do not meet the feature impact threshold for any entries of the plurality of entries, training a new machine learning model by excluding the one or more features from the plurality of features” 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 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 14
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “determining the accuracy metric based on a comparison between the updated machine learning model and the machine learning model” 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 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No, this limitation “a machine learning model” and “updated machine learning model” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “a machine learning model” and “updated machine learning model” are used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No, this limitation “a machine learning model” and “updated machine learning model” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “a machine learning model” and “updated machine learning model” are used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
The dependent claims as analyzed above, do not recite limitations that integrated the judicial exception into a practical application. In addition, the claim limitations do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). Therefore, the claims do not recite any limitations, when considered individually or as a whole, that recite what the courts have identified as “significantly more”, see MPEP 2106.05; and therefore, as a whole the claims are not patent eligible.
As shown above, the dependent claims do not provide any additional elements that when considered individually or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified. Therefore, as a whole the dependent claims do not recite what the courts have identified as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception and does not recite, when claim elements are examined individually and as a whole, elements that the courts have identified as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed. 101 rejections still remains.
Reason for allowance:
Examiner has considered the claims in view of the searched arts and NPLs provided by the Applicant. After reviewing the art and performing an detailed search, the examiner finds that no combination of prior art reads on the claim as a whole. Specifically, no prior arts, either alone or in combination make the independent claims as a whole novel.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Taneja et al (US 20230042330 A1): A method for ranking an unmeasured feature for an instance given at least one feature is measured is provided. The method includes imputing a first value to the unmeasured feature in the instance while holding the other remaining unmeasured features constant and evaluating a first outcome with a model using the first value in the instance. The method includes imputing a second value to the unmeasured feature in the dataset while holding the other remaining unmeasured features constant, evaluating a second outcome with the model using the second value in the instance, and determining a statistical parameter with the first outcome and the second outcome. The method also includes assigning the unmeasured feature a ranking corresponding to the determined statistical parameter. A system and a non-transitory, computer readable medium storing instructions to perform the above method are also presented.
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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIMEI JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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, Mariela D Reyes can be reached at 571-270-1006. 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.
/HAIMEI JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2142
Prosecution Insights