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 .
Status of the Application
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/18/2024 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 7-9, 12-13, and 17 are currently amended.
Claims 1-17 are currently pending following this response.
New matter
No new matter has been added to the amended claims.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
The arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on pages 9-13
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The present claims primarily recite a series of abstract mathematical steps performed on generic data, without an integration into a tangible, practical application or a specific improvement to a technological process.
It recites mathematical formulas and relationships, such as principal component analysis (PCA), fitting a proxy model, computing weights, parameterizing probability density functions (PDFs), and reweighting standard deviation parameters (Mathematical Concept). Steps like "identifying new sample data," "identifying second sample outliers," and "outputting an indication of prediction confidence" are high-level data manipulations that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper (Mental Processes / Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). (Applicant’s arguments page 9)
Further, the claims provide no technological improvement. While the data represents a "geological feature," the Federal Circuit has consistently ruled that merely limiting an abstract mathematical formula to a particular technological field or environment (like geology or oil and gas) does not save it from being "directed to" an abstract idea (see Parker v. Flook, Bilski v. Kappos). (Applicant’s arguments page 10)
Under Step 2B: Does the claim recite an "inventive concept" (significantly more)?
The elements of the claim, viewed individually or as an ordered combination, do not add "significantly more" to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application:
Generic Implementations: Performing PCA, creating a proxy model, and calculating PDFs are standard statistical and machine learning tools. The claim does not introduce an architectural improvement to computer memory/processing speed for example.
Drafting Style: The language relies on functional results (e.g., "relaxing the input data distributions," "generating a weighted probability density representation") without disclosing specific, non-conventional structures or technical steps that dictate how the computer achieves this uniquely outside of basic math.
Data In / Data Out: The claim collects data, manipulates it mathematically, and outputs a number ("prediction confidence"). Under precedents like Electric Power Group v. Alstom, simply collecting, analyzing, and displaying information is a core abstract idea and does not provide an inventive concept. (Applicant’s arguments page 11)
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 101 in the present office action.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-17 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1-17 even if they were directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claims are directed to the abstract idea of data confidence assessment, identifying, and outputting outliers.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations for “A method, comprising: performing a principal component analysis on k model original features to obtain k principal components representing uncorrelated input data distributions, wherein k is an integer; fitting a proxy model using k principal component inputs to generate predictions of an output property representing a geological feature; computing feature importance weights for each of the k principal component inputs based on contributions of the k principal component inputs to the predictions generated by the proxy model; parameterizing k principal component input data distributions, wherein the input data distributions comprise one or more first sample outliers; relaxing the input data distributions of each of the k principal component input data distributions by applying normalized feature importance weights to reweight one or more standard deviation parameters of a probability density function describing the k principal component input data distributions to generate a weighted probability density function in which deviations along a first plurality of axes associated with first feature importance weights of the k principal component input data distributions below a first threshold are reduced relative to deviations along a second plurality of axes associated with second feature importance weights of the k principal component input data distributions above a second threshold, and wherein relaxing the input data distributions results in the one or more first sample outliers being classified as in-distribution; generating a weighted probability density representation of a principal component space using the weighted probability density function; identifying any new sample data relative to weighted probabilities determined from the weighted probability density representation; identifying sample outliers based on the weighted probabilities; and outputting an indication of prediction confidence for the new sample data based on evaluation within the weighted probability density representation”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the limitations above recite mathematical concepts and data manipulation because the claimed elements describe a process for data confidence assessment, identifying, and outputting outliers by performing a principal component analysis, fitting a proxy model, and computing features importance. These are mathematical concepts where the court view these practices as abstract. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 7, 13, and 17 recite substantially similar limitations to those presented with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 7, 13, and 17 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Similarly, claims 2-5, 9-12, and 14-16 recite mathematical concepts and data manipulation because the claimed elements describe a process for data confidence assessment, identifying, and outputting outliers by performing a principal component analysis, fitting a proxy model, and computing features importance. As a result, claims 2-5, 9-12, and 14-16 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 7, 13, and 17 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 17 further recites “An article of manufacture”, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 7, 13, and 17 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-5, 9-12, and 14-16 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 7, 13, and 17. As a result, claims 2-5, 9-12, and 14-16 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 7, 13, and 17 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 17 further recites “An article of manufacture”, the recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 7, 13, and 17 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-5, 9-12, and 14-16 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 7, 13, and 17. As a result, claims 2-5, 9-12, and 14-16 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose contact information is (571) 272-0819 and Abdallah.el-hagehassan@uspto.gov The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-3734.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the patent application information retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (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 US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights