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. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As per claim 1: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “ processing the machine learning model to extract a current explainability vector, wherein each entry in the current explainability vector corresponds to a feature in the first set of features and is indicative of a correlation between the feature and an output of the machine learning model ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., calculating a vector using a Shapely Additive Explanation algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The limitation, “ based on the plurality of historical data profiles, generating a data drift vector, wherein each entry in the data drift vector is indicative of expected change to a feature of the first set of features for the historical data ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., calculating a drift vector using an extrapolation model. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The limitation, “ using the data drift vector, generating a projected synthetic dataset, wherein the projected synthetic dataset comprises values for the first set of features at a future time ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., calculating projected values using a regression model. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The limitation, “ updating the machine learning model based on the projected synthetic dataset to generate an updated machine learning model ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., calculating projected values using gradient descent. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The limitation, “ processing the updated machine learning model to extract a future explainability vector, wherein each entry in the future explainability vector corresponds to a feature in the first set of features and is indicative of a correlation between the feature and an output of the updated machine learning model ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., calculating a vector using a Shapely Additive Explanation algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The limitation, “ using the current explainability vector and the future explainability vector, generating a second set of features including features with associated values in the current explainability vector or the future explainability vector above a threshold, wherein the second set of features is a subset of the first set of feature s,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to which vectors are above the threshold. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “ determining a drift threshold vector for the second set of features based on an associated value for each feature in the current explainability vector and the future explainability vector, wherein each entry in the drift threshold vector corresponds to a feature of the second set of features and is indicative of a degree of allowed drift for the feature ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., performing division of a uniform value by the higher value for the feature in the current explainability vector and the future explainability vector . This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The limitation, “ based on an associated entry in the drift threshold vector and the data drift vector, for each feature of the second set of features, determining a discrepancy score between the associated entry in the drift threshold vector and an associated entry in the data drift vector ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., performing division of a uniform value by the higher value for the feature in the current explainability vector and the future explainability vector . This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract idea s . MPEP § 2106.04(a). For the purposes of evaluating whether the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea or is significantly more than an abstract idea, these recited abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely collecting information, analyzing it, and presenting the results of the analysis. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). The abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and presenting the results of the analysis is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element, “ receiving a machine learning model and a plurality of historical data profiles, wherein the machine learning model is trained on historical data, wherein the historical data profiles correspond to instances of the historical data at different times, and wherein the historical data comprises values for a first set of features ,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional element, “ generating a notification dashboard, comprising an alert including one or more features in the second set of features and their associated discrepancy scores ,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g). As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and presenting the results of the analysis to the technological environment of machine learning using generic computer as a tool to perform the collection, analysis, and presentation. MPEP §§ 2106.05(b), 2106.05(f), 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions: The additional element, “ receiving a machine learning model and a plurality of historical data profiles, wherein the machine learning model is trained on historical data, wherein the historical data profiles correspond to instances of the historical data at different times, and wherein the historical data comprises values for a first set of features ,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is storing and retrieving information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The additional element, “ generating a notification dashboard, comprising an alert including one or more features in the second set of features and their associated discrepancy scores ,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is presenting information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of using a computer interface to present information. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and presenting the results of the analysis because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC , 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 2: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “ using the data drift vector, generating a projected synthetic dataset, wherein the projected synthetic dataset comprises values for the first set of features at a future time ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., calculating projected values using a regression model. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The limitation, “ updating the machine learning model based on the projected synthetic dataset to generate an updated machine learning model ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., calculating projected values using gradient descent. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The limitation, “ using the current explainability vector and a future explainability vector for the updated machine learning model, generating a second set of features, wherein the second set of features is a subset of the first set of features ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic 6.05(g). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). For the purposes of evaluating whether the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea or is significantly more than an abstract idea, these recited abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely collecting information, analyzing it, and presenting the results of the analysis. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). The abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and presenting the results of the analysis is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element, “ receiving a current explainability vector for a machine learning model and a data drift vector for a plurality of historical data profiles, wherein the machine learning model is trained on historical data, wherein the historical data profiles correspond to instances of the historical data at different times, and wherein the historical data comprises values for a first set of features ,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional element, “ generating an alert including one or more features in the second set of features and their associated discrepancy scores ,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g). As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and presenting the results of the analysis to the technological environment of machine learning using generic computer as a tool to perform the collection, analysis, and presentation. MPEP §§ 2106.05(b), 2106.05(f), 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions: The additional element, “ receiving a current explainability vector for a machine learning model and a data drift vector for a plurality of historical data profiles, wherein the machine learning model is trained on historical data, wherein the historical data profiles correspond to instances of the historical data at different times, and wherein the historical data comprises values for a first set of features ,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is storing and retrieving information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The additional element, “ generating an alert including one or more features in the second set of features and their associated discrepancy scores ,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is presenting information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of using a computer interface to present information. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and presenting the results of the analysis because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC , 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 3: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “ wherein generating the data drift vector comprises: using a time-series extrapolation model, processing the historical data and the plurality of historical data profiles to generate the data drift vector, wherein the data drift vector comprises magnitudes of change for first set of features ” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., calculating a drift vector using an extrapolation model. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 4: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “ generating a uniform vector, wherein the uniform vector comprises a real value repeated a number of times equal to a number of features in the second set of features ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., calculating a uniform vector. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The limitation, “ generating a weight vector, wherein the weight vector comprises the greater of an associated value in the current explainability vector and an associated value in the future explainability vector for each feature in the second set of features ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., calculating which of the feature in the current explainability vector and the future explainability vector is higher. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The limitation, “ determining the drift threshold vector by dividing the uniform vector by the weight vector ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., performing division of a uniform value by the higher value for the feature in the current explainability vector and the future explainability vector . This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 5: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “ the machine learning model is defined by a set of parameters comprising a matrix of weights for a multivariate regression algorithm ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., a multivariate regression algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The limitation, “ the current explainability vector is extracted from the set of parameters using a Shapley Additive Explanation method ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., a Shapley Additive Explanation algorithm . This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 6: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “ the machine learning model is defined by a set of parameters comprising a matrix of weights for a supervised classifier algorithm ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., a supervised classifier algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The limitation, “ the current explainability vector is extracted from the set of parameters using a Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations method ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., a Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 7: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “ the machine learning model is defined by a set of parameters comprising a vector of coefficients for a generalized additive model ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., a generalized additive algorithm . This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The limitation, “ the current explainability vector is extracted from the vector of coefficients in the generalized additive model ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., a generalized additive algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 8: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “ the machine learning model is defined by a set of parameters comprising a matrix of weights for a convolutional neural network algorithm ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., a convolutional neural network algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The limitation, “ the current explainability vector is extracted from the set of parameters using a Gradient Class Activation Mapping method ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., a Gradient Class Activation Mapping algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 9: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “ the machine learning model is defined by a set of parameters comprising a hyperplane matrix for a support vector machine algorithm ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., a support vector machine algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The limitation, “ the current explainability vector is extracted from the set of parameters using a counterfactual explanation method ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., a counterfactual explanation algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 10: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “ based on one or more discrepancy scores, determining to employ the updated machine learning model in place of the machine learning model ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment that the updated machine learning model is better. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 11: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “ using a first regression model, processing the data drift vector and the historical data to generate projected values for the first set of features ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., calculating projected values using a regression model. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 12: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “ generating a covariance matrix based on the current explainability vector and the future explainability vector ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., calculating a covariance matrix. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The limitation, “ computing a set of eigenvectors for the covariance matrix ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., calculating a set of eigenvectors. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The limitation, “ selecting a measure of coverage and selecting a subset of eigenvectors from the set of eigenvectors based on the measure of coverage ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, the first recitation of “selecting” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what the measure of coverage should be, and the second recitation of “selecting” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to a subset of eigenvectors that add up to more than the measure of coverage. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “ determining the second set of features corresponding to the subset of eigenvectors ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “ determining ” encompasses a person keeping track, using pen and paper, as to which feature corresponds to which eigenvector . This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 13: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “ using a data drift vector for a plurality of historical data profiles, generating a projected synthetic dataset, wherein the projected synthetic dataset comprises values for a first set of features at a future time, wherein the plurality of historical data profiles correspond to instances of historical data at different times, and wherein the historical data comprises values for the first set of features ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., calculating projected values using a regression model. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The limitation, “ using a current explainability vector for a machine learning model trained on the historical data and a future explainability vector for an updated machine learning model generated from updating the machine learning model on the projected synthetic dataset, generating a second set of features ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., calculating projected values using gradient descent. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The limitation, “ based on an associated entry in a drift threshold vector for the second set of features and the data drift vector, for each feature of the second set of features, determining a discrepancy score between the associated entry in the drift threshold vector and an associated entry in the data drift vector ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., performing division of a uniform value by the higher value for the feature in the current explainability vector and the future explainability vector . This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). For the purposes of evaluating whether the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea or is significantly more than an abstract idea, these recited abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely collecting information, analyzing it, and presenting the results of the analysis. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). The abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and presenting the results of the analysis is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element, “ generating an alert including one or more features in the second set of features and their associated discrepancy scores ,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g). As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and presenting the results of the analysis to the technological environment of machine learning using generic computer as a tool to perform the collection, analysis, and presentation. MPEP §§ 2106.05(b), 2106.05(f), 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions: The additional element, “ generating an alert including one or more features in the second set of features and their associated discrepancy scores ,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is presenting information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of using a computer interface to present information. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and presenting the results of the analysis because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC , 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 14: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “ using a time-series extrapolation model, processing the historical data and the plurality of historical data profiles to generate the data drift vector, wherein the data drift vector comprises magnitudes of change for first set of features ” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., calculating a drift vector using an extrapolation model. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 15: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “ generating a uniform vector, wherein the uniform vector comprises a real value repeated a number of times equal to a number of features in the second set of features ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., calculating a uniform vector. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The limitation, “ generating a weight vector, wherein the weight vector comprises the greater of an associated value in the current explainability vector and an associated value in the future explainability vector for each feature in the second set of features ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., calculating which of the feature in the current explainability vector and the future explainability vector is higher. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The limitation, “ determining the drift threshold vector by dividing the uniform vector by the weight vector ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., performing division of a uniform value by the higher value for the feature in the current explainability vector and the future explainability vector . This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 16: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “ the machine learning model is defined by a set of parameters comprising a matrix of weights for a multivariate regression algorithm ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., a multivariate regression algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The limitation, “ the current explainability vector is extracted from the set of parameters using a Shapley Additive Explanation method ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., a Shapley Additive Explanation algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 17: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “ the machine learning model is defined by a set of parameters comprising a matrix of weights for a supervised classifier algorithm ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., a supervised classifier algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The limitation, “ the current explainability vector is extracted from the set of parameters using a Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations method ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., a Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 18: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “ based on one or more discrepancy scores, determining to employ the updated machine learning model in place of the machine learning model ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment that the updated machine learning model is better. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 19: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “ using a first regression model, processing the data drift vector and the historical data to generate projected values for the first set of features ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., calculating projected values using a regression model. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 20: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “ generating a covariance matrix based on the current explainability vector and the future explainability vector ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., calculating a covariance matrix. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The limitation, “ computing a set of eigenvectors for the covariance matrix ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, e.g., calculating a set of eigenvectors. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The limitation, “ selecting a measure of coverage and selecting a subset of eigenvectors from the set of eigenvectors based on the measure of coverage ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, the first recitation of “selecting” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what the measure of coverage should be, and the second recitation of “selecting” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to a subset of eigenvectors that add up to more than the measure of coverage. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “ determining the second set of features corresponding to the subset of eigenvectors ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person keeping track, using pen and paper, as to which feature corresponds to which eigenvector. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. Conclusion The prior art does not teach the claimed analysis of machine learning models, using a data drift vector to generate a projected data set, using a current explainability vector for a current machine learning model and a future explainability vector for a machine learning model updated on the projected data set, and determining a discrepancy score between entries for features in the data drift vector and a drift threshold vector. However, this analysis is an abstract idea, and therefore is not patentable. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT WILLIAM SPIELER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3883 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 11-3 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Ann Lo can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-9767 . 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