DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 are pending. Claims 1-8 are considered in this Office 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 .
Pro Se Information
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2 and 4-7 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 has 2 sentences and a Claim is require to be only one sentence. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 2-7 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.
Regarding claims 2-7, the phrase "the method" in each of the claims is illy defined as to which this is referring to. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding claims 4-7, Claim 4 recites the phrase "such as image recognition,…" which renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "such as"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claim they rely on and thus are similarly rejected.
Claims 2, 4, and 6-7 recite the limitations of “considering their compatibility and relevance” and “enable efficient data flow”. It is unclear here what “relevance” and “efficient” would be, as the metes and bounds of this are unclear, and the specification is silent as to what “relevance” and “efficient” would be, and this would differ person to person as to what is relevant or efficient. For examination purposes the term relevant will be taken as the ability to have any combination of nodes and the term efficient data flow will be allowing for data flow.
The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of independent claims they rely on and thus are similarly rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 4-7 recite “the method of any of the preceding Claims”, “implementing the method of any of the preceding Claims”, and “performing the method of any of the preceding Claims” and it is improper as it is unclear which “method” the Claims are referring to.
Claims 5, 6, and 7 are all multi-dependent Claims, and they are dependent on previous multi-dependent Claims which is improper.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Alice - Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites the limitations for a. receiving an input or request from a user (Collecting Information, an Observation, a Mental Process; a Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. data analysis, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), b. identifying one or more algorithms in the network that are suited to process the input or request based on their area of expertise (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. data analysis, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), c. transmitting the input or request to the identified algorithms for processing (Transmitting the Information, a Judgment, a Mental Process; a Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. data analysis, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), d. receiving the outputs of the identified algorithms (Collecting/Transmitting Information, an Observation, a Mental Process; a Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. data analysis, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), e. combining the outputs to produce a final result (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. data analysis, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), f. transmitting the final result to the user (Transmitting the Information, a Judgment, a Mental Process; a Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. data analysis, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of transmitting a final result to a user, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a use of a computer with networked algorithms, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of a Fundamental Economic Process. For example, receiving the outputs of an identified algorithm, combining the outputs, and then transmitting the final results to a user encompasses a supervisor, manager, data analyst, etc. receiving data such as numbers, combining the numbers such as in an excel spreadsheet, and sending them on to others to help make decisions, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for a Fundamental Economic Process, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The computer and network are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the collecting and transmitting steps above are at best insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification is silent to any other the additional elements other then generally stating use of a computer, network, interface, etc., and this leads to the conclusion any generic computer using a processor/processing device and network can be used to perform the abstract limitations, such as a laptop, phone, desktop, etc., and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the collecting and transmitting steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the computer, network, etc., nor the collecting and transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-5 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with no new additional elements to be considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Claims 6-8 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them such as by comprising a plurality of nodes and use of a Master Algorithm, with the additional elements of a computer system, memory, processor, network interface, computer-readable medium, and system which are highly generic when considered using Applicant’s Specification as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hall (U.S. Publication No. 2022/034,4049).
Regarding Claim 1, Hall, a decentralized artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning training system and method, teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising:
a. receiving an input or request from a user ([0110] requested models and parameters from a user, also in [0163])
b. identifying one or more algorithms in the network that are suited to process the input or request based on their area of expertise ([0114] model is created and selected for the area)
c. transmitting the input or request to the identified algorithms for processing ([0119] selected/identified model identifies parameters which shows processing)
d. receiving the outputs of the identified algorithms ([0119] selected/identified model identifies parameters which are the outputs)
e. combining the outputs to produce a final result ([0252] final result model from all the nodes which represent models)
f. transmitting the final result to the user ([0267] results are sent to source to or user interface for ser to see)
Regarding Claim 2, Hall teaches this method involves a network consisting of multiple nodes, with each node representing an algorithm ([0124] multiple nodes in the network which are models/algorithms with similar data transfer protocols). The connections between nodes are established by considering their compatibility and relevance to one another ([0023-26] relevancy/similarity is used to determine whether nodes will be used together).
Regarding Claim 3, Hall teaches the method includes a network of algorithms, which encompass various capabilities such as image recognition, natural language processing, speech recognition, predictive analytics, machine learning, deep learning, data mining, or statistical analysis ([0139] network of algorithms (each node) which encompass deep learning models).
Regarding Claim 4, Hall teaches The method of any of the preceding claims, wherein the communication protocols between the nodes of the network enable efficient data flow and minimize latency ([0139] network and latency are considered which use predefined [0282] communication protocols)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (U.S. Publication No. 2022/034,4049) in view of Cataltepe (U.S. Publication No. 2022/020,7399).
Regarding Claim 5, Hall teaches The method of any of the preceding claims, wherein the Master Algorithm employs machine learning techniques to optimize the selection and combination of algorithms based on past performance ([0151] the master model is used to optimize the result), but it does not explicitly state feedback from users.
Cataltepe, a continuously learning, stable and robust online machine learning system and method, teaches feedback from a user being obtained and used in the model as in [0063] and [0066], which is used in combining of algorithms as in [0139].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of algorithms based on performance of Hall with the combination of algorithms using feedback from users of Cataltepe as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which all teach solutions using a combination of learning algorithms, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase model trustworthiness and accountability, improving overall performance as taught in [0060] of Cataltepe.
Regarding Claim 6, Hall teaches A computer system for implementing the method of any of the preceding claims, comprising:
a. a memory storing instructions for performing the method;
b. a processor for executing the instructions;
c. a network interface for receiving inputs and transmitting outputs ([0282-283] system with processor, memory, and use of a medium and [0062] a network interface)
Regarding Claim 7, Hall teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing instructions for performing the method of any of the preceding claims ([0282-283] system with processor, memory, and use of a medium and [0062] a network interface)
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 is taught by the combination of Hall and Cataltepe for the same reasons and rationale as in Claims 1-6 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220344049 A1
HALL; Jonathan Michael MacGillivray et al.
DECENTRALIZED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI)/MACHINE LEARNING TRAINING SYSTEM
US 20220207399 A1
Cataltepe; Tanju
CONTINUOUSLY LEARNING, STABLE AND ROBUST ONLINE MACHINE LEARNING SYSTEM
US 20250384037 A1
Bove; Samuel Peter et al.
Optimizing an Initial Query Execution Plan Including a Limit Operation
US 20240346524 A1
Rojas Garcia; Katia Mariel
System and Methods for Optimizing Human Factors and Usability Engineering in Life Sciences Using Artificial Intelligence
US 20240331011 A1
Clarke; Paul J. et al.
Product Substitution Functionality for Harmonizing Procurement Across Distribution Networks
US 20240273412 A1
BROCKETT; Neil et al.
UNLEARNABLE TASKS IN MACHINE LEARNING
US 20230057593 A1
Krishnamurthy; Balachander et al.
COMPENSATING FOR VULNERABILITIES IN MACHINE LEARNING ALGORITHMS
US 20220391687 A1
Co-Reyes; John Dalton et al.
REINFORCEMENT LEARNING ALGORITHM SEARCH
US 20220383195 A1
Liang; Chen et al.
MACHINE LEARNING ALGORITHM SEARCH
US 20220058518 A1
DeSanto; Keith Louis
Using machine learning algorithms and nanotechnology combinations to clean an indoor environment.
US 20210133624 A1
Chalamalasetti; Sai Rahul et al.
RESILIENCY FOR MACHINE LEARNING WORKLOADS
US 20210073685 A1
Veshchikov; Nikita et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS INVOLVING DETECTION OF COMPROMISED DEVICES THROUGH COMPARISON OF MACHINE LEARNING MODELS
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 2/9/2026