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 .
Drawings
Figure 4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 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 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, “b) learning a rule regarding the target literal from the positive examples and negative examples in the dataset according to a gini impurity heuristic,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is disclosed as covering a step of a mathematical algorithm, Specification ¶¶ [0083]-[0095]. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “c) 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 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, “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,” 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).
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 an algorithm to determine logical rules to predict a binary classification. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-15, 17-24, and 26-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Srinivasan, The Aleph Manual.
As per claims 1, 10, and 19, Srinivasan teaches:
a) receiving a dataset, wherein the dataset comprises positive examples and negative examples of a given target literal, Srinivasan pp. 4-5, where the positive exampels file and negative examples file are read;
b) learning a rule regarding the target literal from the positive examples and negative examples in the dataset according to a gini impurity heuristic, Srinivasan pp. 2, 7-15, where Aleph can be configured to learn rules according to a gini impurity heuristic;
c) 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:, Srinivasan pg. 10, where minpos is the specified tail value
ruling out those positive examples covered by the rule from the dataset, Srinivasan pg. 2, where cover is removed;
adding the rule to a rule set, Srinivasan pg. 10, where an acceptable clause is added to the current theory; 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, Srinivasan pg. 2, where a new sample to be generalized is chosen until none remain; and
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, Srinivasan pp. 5-6, where the final theory is returned.
As per claims 2, 11 and 20, the rejection of claims 1, 10 and 19 is incorporated, and Srinivasan further teaches:
wherein the rule set specifies in natural language the rules for machine learning prediction, Srinivasan pg. 6, where, e.g., a rule set specifies that a train is eastbound if it has a short car that is closed.
As per claims 3, 12, and 21, the rejection of claims 1, 10 and 19 is incorporated, and Srinivasan further teaches:
wherein the rule set comprises default rules with exceptions, Srinivasan pg. 7, where official notice is taken that the linked zip file shows examples of rule sets (e.g., \gcws\typescript shows a theory with a rule “ab0(A) :- div4(A), not ab1(A).” where div4(A) is an default rule and not ab1(A) is an exception).
adding a new literal to a default part of the temporary rule that best splits the positive examples as covered and negative examples as not covered by the temporary rule according to the gini impurity heuristic with a target literal as rule head
As per claims 4, 13, and 22, the rejection of claims 1, 10 and 19 is incorporated, and Srinivasan further teaches:
e) specifying a temporary rule comprising an empty rule body and the target literal as rule head, Srinivasan pp. 2, 4, where the hypothesis has the target literal as the head of hypothesized clauses;
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, Srinivasan pp. 2, 9, where the “best” clause is according to the gini impurity heuristic;
g) adding the new literal to a default part of the temporary rule, Srinivasan pg. 2, where the clause being considered is constructed, i.e., having the new literal added as a default part;
h) ruling out the positive examples and negative examples that are not covered by the temporary rule, Srinivasan pg. 10, where minimum positive coverage only considers the covered examples;
i) determining whether the temporary rule covers a number of the positive examples above the specified tail size, Srinivasan pg. 10, where setting minpos above 1 causes the claimed deterination;
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, Srinivasan pg. 10, where a best clause that has sufficient positive coverage is added to the theory; and
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, Srinivasan pg. 10, where a best clause that does not have sufficient positive coverage is not added to the theory.
As per claims 6, 15, and 24, the rejection of claims 4, 13, and 22 is incorporated, and Srinivasan further teaches:
determining whether the negative examples number below a preset ratio, Srinivasan pg. 10, where minacc defines the ratio; and
responsive to a determination that the negative examples do not number below the preset ratio, repeating steps e) through h), Srinivasan pg. 10, where a clause that the ratio indicates too many negative examples, the clause is rejected from the theory.
As per claims 8, 17, and 26, the rejection of claims 1, 10 and 19 is incorporated, and Srinivasan further teaches:
wherein the rule set is executable on an s(CASP) (solver for Constraints Answer Set Programs) system, Srinivasan pg. 6, where, e.g., “eastbound(A) : has_car(A,B), short(B), closed(B)” is executable on a s(CASP) system, Specification ¶¶ [00102]-[00116].
As per claims 9, 18, and 27, the rejection of claims 1, 10 and 19 is incorporated, and Srinivasan further teaches:
wherein the dataset comprises both numerical and categorical data, Srinivasan pg. 34, where Aleph performs reasoning on numerical and categorical data.
Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art does not teach the novel algorithmic step of claims 7, 16, and 25 of swapping positive and negative examples to populate an exception rule set added to an exception part of a temporary rule for rule construction.
Conclusion
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