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 .
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action in response to Examiner's communication of 02/19/2026, Applicant, on 03/17/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 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.
Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer’).
Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing that recognized data in a memory in Content Extraction is according to the court an abstract idea that is similar to other concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts. Present claim 1 is collecting and analyzing data using a generic computer processor to identify outliers and outputting an indication of confidence. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude based on the similarity of the idea described in this claim to several abstract ideas found by the courts that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The present claims mirror cases like Billing v. United States or FairWarning IP v. latric Systems where the court ruled that collecting, analyzing, and displaying data for risk or compliance purposes is an abstract idea, regardless of how complex the scoring algorithm is. Further, simply invoking “machine learning” to perform the claimed steps is often treated as a black box by the court unless the claims specify a technical improvement to the ML architecture itself. This concept is viewed as a tool used to automate a manual concept.
Further, the additional elements in the claims (by a processor) do not improve any existing technology. As a result, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, Step 2A Prong Two.
Because the Examiner has determined that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, the Examiner proceeds to Step 2B of the Eligibility Guidelines, which asks whether there is an inventive concept. In making this Step 2B determination, the Examiner must consider whether there are specific limitations or elements recited in the claim “that are not well - understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present” or whether the claim “simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.” Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56 (footnote omitted). The Examiner must also consider whether the combination of steps perform “in an unconventional way and therefore include an ‘inventive step, ’ rendering the claim eligible at Step 2B ” Id. In this part of the analysis, the Examiner considers “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine “whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354. As discussed above, there is no evidence in the record that the steps of identifying outliers and outputting an indication of confidence are accomplished in a non-conventional way. The Examiner therefore concludes that the claims used generic, conventional, technology to implement the abstract idea and that there is no inventive concept in the present claims.
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 101 in the present office action.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
The arguments have been fully considered and they are persuasive.
None of the cited documents by the Examiner, taken individually or in combination, discloses or suggests the features in the independent claims as amended, nor could a person skilled in the art easily conceive of such features even in the light of common technical knowledge at the time of filing. The pending claims 1-17 are therefore distinguished from the prior arts cited by the Examiner.
In conclusion, the Examiner withdraws the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 103 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; 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; 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
Applicant's amendments and arguments dated 03/17/2026 necessitated the updating of the 35 USC § 101 rejection and the withdrawal of the 35 USC § 103 rejections of the pending claims presented in the present Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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) 273-8300.
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