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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 31 August 2026 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “[t]he claimed invention improves the technical field of machine learning programming by extracting logic programming rules for AI that are comprehensible to humans.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite a mathematical algorithm to extract logic programming rules for AI that are comprehensible to humans, and not a technical improvement to extracting logic programming rules for AI that are comprehensible to humans.
Applicant discloses that FOLD-R++ improves technology, Specification ¶¶ [0085]-[0086], but has claimed the idea of what the FOLD-R++ does instead of FOLD-R++ itself. Applicant’s reliance on Desjardins is not persuasive because the claims of Desjardins claimed the algorithm itself: adjusting first values of parameters to optimize and objective function that depends on a penalty term that is based on determined measures of importance of parameters, where the measures of importance are determined by computing, based on the first values, an approximation of a posterior distribution over possible values of the plurality of parameters and assigning, using the approximation, a value to each of the plurality of parameters, the value approximating a probability that the first value is a correct value of the parameter given the first training data used to train the machine learning model. Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567, pp. 2-3 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential); MPEP § 2106.05(a) (“An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.”); MPEP § 21060.05(f) (“The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”.”); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2016)see Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205, 1214 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (“compare McRo, 837 F.3d at 1314-16 (finding eligibility of claims to use specific computer techniques different from those humans use on their own to produce natural-seeming lip motion for speech).” (emphasis added)); see Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Elecs., Inc., 174 F.4th 888, 902-904 (Fed. Cir. 2026).
Applicant has claimed enough of FOLD-R++ to distinguish it from Srinivasan. The rejection under 35 USC § 102 is withdrawn. FOLD-R++ is novel. If Applicant wants to argue that FOLD-R++ is an improvement to technology, then claim FOLD-R++. See MPEP § 2181(II)(B).
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 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claims 1, 10, and 19:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “a) receiving a dataset in tabular form, wherein the dataset comprises positive examples and negative examples of a given target literal,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is disclosed as covering, at a high level of generality, an input step of a mathematical algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “b) learning a rule regarding the target literal from the positive examples and negative examples in the dataset according to a gini impurity heuristic, wherein the gini impurity heuristic comprises a weighted square root of gini impurities calculated for each category of data” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is disclosed as covering, at a high level of generality, steps of a mathematical algorithm, Specification ¶¶ [0083]-[0095]. That is it recites, as a mathematical relationship, and at a high level of generality, a rule regarding a target literal and a calculated gini impurity characteristic. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “c) calculating a prefix sum to determine information gain, and responsive to a determination that there are a number of the positive examples in the dataset above a specified tail value are covered by the rule: ruling out those positive examples covered by the rule from the dataset; adding the rule to a rule set; and returning to step b) to learn a new rule for the target literal according to all remaining positive examples and negative examples in the dataset,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is disclosed as covering calculating steps, at a high level of generality, of a mathematical algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “d) responsive to a determination that there are no remaining positive examples in the dataset covered by the rule, returning the rule set to a user in the form of a stratified logic program, wherein the dataset has no recursive calls through negated literals in the rules,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is disclosed as covering a final output step, at a high level of generality, of a mathematical 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).
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 a mathematical algorithm to extract logic programming rules for AI that are comprehensible to humans. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B).
The abstract idea of an algorithm to determine logical rules to predict a binary classification is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim(s) recites an additional element of a generic computer. MPEP § 2106.05(b).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere instruction to apply the recited algorithm on a computer because the computer is invoked merely as a tool to perform the algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
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).
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 claims 2, 11, and 20:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the rule set specifies in natural language the rules for machine learning prediction,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is disclosed as covering a step of a mathematical algorithm, i.e., describing the output of the algorithm. 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 claims 3, 12, and 21:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the rule set comprises default rules with exceptions,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is disclosed as covering a step of a mathematical algorithm, i.e., describing the output of the algorithm. 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 claims 4, 13, and 22:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “e) specifying a temporary rule comprising an empty rule body and the target literal as rule head,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is disclosed as covering a step of a mathematical algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “f) selecting a new literal that best splits the positive examples as covered and negative examples as not covered by the temporary rule according to the gini impurity heuristic,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is disclosed as covering a step of a mathematical algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “g) adding the new literal to a default part of the temporary rule,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is disclosed as covering a step of a mathematical algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “h) ruling out the positive examples and negative examples that are not covered by the temporary rule,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is disclosed as covering a step of a mathematical algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “i) determining whether the temporary rule covers a number of the positive examples above the specified tail size,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is disclosed as covering a step of a mathematical algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “j) responsive to a determination that the temporary rule covers a number of the positive examples above the specified tail size, returning the temporary rule as the rule regarding the target literal,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is disclosed as covering a step of a mathematical algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “k) responsive to a determination that the temporary rule does not cover a number of the positive example above the specified tail size, returning the temporary rule as invalid,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is disclosed as covering a step of a mathematical 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 claims 5, 14, and 23:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “determining whether the new literal is valid,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is disclosed as covering a step of a mathematical algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “responsive to a determination that the new literal is invalid, removing the new literal from the temporary rule,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is disclosed as covering a step of a mathematical 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 claims 6, 15, and 24:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “determining whether the negative examples number below a preset ratio,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is disclosed as covering a step of a mathematical algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “responsive to a determination that the negative examples do not number below the preset ratio, repeating steps e) through h,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is disclosed as covering a step of a mathematical 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 claims 7, 16, and 25:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “determining whether a set of the negative examples is empty,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is disclosed as covering a step of a mathematical algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “responsive to a determination that the set of negative examples is not empty, swapping the positive and negative examples,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is disclosed as covering a step of a mathematical algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “repeating steps a) through d) with the swapped positive and negative examples to learn an exception rule set,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is disclosed as covering a step of a mathematical algorithm. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “adding the exception rule set to an exception part of the temporary rule,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is disclosed as covering a step of a mathematical 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 claims 8, 17, and 26:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the rule set is executable on an s(CASP) (solver for Constraints Answer Set Programs) system,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is disclosed as covering a step of a mathematical algorithm, i.e., describing the output of the algorithm. 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 claims 9, 18, and 27:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the dataset comprises both numerical and categorical data,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is disclosed as covering a step of a mathematical algorithm, i.e., describing the input of the algorithm. 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.
Conclusion
FOLD-R++ is novel.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this 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).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM SPIELER whose telephone number is (571)270-3883. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Ann Lo can be reached at 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 for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
WILLIAM SPIELER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2159
/WILLIAM SPIELER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
