DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed on 12/22/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1 and 14 are independent claims.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application
filed in Russian Federation on 12/23/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/22/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The non-patent literature document titled “Gradient Boosting Performs Low-Rank Gaussian Process Inference” has been stricken through and not considered because the author provided in the citation does not match the author of the document submitted. All other references are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. See applicant’s specification paragraph 0041.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the plurality of lead nodes" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim also recites “a plurality of leaf nodes” in line 1. It is unclear if applicant is attempting to recite a new claim element or if applicant is attempting to refer to a previously recited claim element. For examination purposes, this limitation has been interpreted to mean “the plurality of leaf nodes”, referring to the previously recited claim element.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the server” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The parent claim recites “a processor” in line 2. It is unclear if applicant is attempting to recite a new claim element or if applicant is attempting to refer to a previously recited claim element. For examination purposes, this limitation has been interpreted to mean “the processor”, referring to the previously recited claim element.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the plurality of lead nodes" in line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim also recites “a plurality of leaf nodes” in line 1. It is unclear if applicant is attempting to recite a new claim element or if applicant is attempting to refer to a previously recited claim element. For examination purposes, this limitation has been interpreted to mean “the plurality of leaf nodes”, referring to the previously recited claim element.
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.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1 Statutory Category: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which falls under one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Judicial exception: Claim 1 recites, in part, “generating, …, a first tree using the plurality of training objects, the generating including: generating a first tree structure with a first leaf node and a second leaf node, at least one from the plurality of training objects falling in the first leaf node and none falling in the second leaf node”. This limitation, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the recitation of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), in this case a judgment or evaluation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Further, the claim recites: “generating a first leaf value for the first leaf node and a second leaf value for the second leaf node, the first and second leaf values being based on a first noise-inducing function such that the first leaf value and the second leaf value are non-null leaf values”. This limitation, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the recitation of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), in this case a judgment or evaluation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Additionally, this limitation covers the recitation of a mathematical calculation, as directed to “a claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number”. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Further, the claim recites: “generating, …, a second tree using the training dataset, the generating including: generating a second tree structure with a third leaf node”. This limitation, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the recitation of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), in this case a judgment or evaluation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Additionally, in light of applicant’s specification paragraphs 0045-0046, this limitation covers the recitation of a mathematical calculation, as directed to “a claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number”. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Further, the claim recites: “generating a third leaf value to the third leaf node, the third leaf value being based on an estimated gradient value of a loss function for at least one training object falling in the third leaf node”. This limitation, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the recitation of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), in this case a judgment or evaluation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Additionally, this limitation covers the recitation of a mathematical calculation, as directed to “a claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number”. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Step 2A Prong 2 Integration into a practical application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites: “a decision-tree based Machine Learning Algorithm (MLA)”. This limitation is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Further, the claim recites: “the method executable by a processor having access to a training dataset”. This limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Further, the claim recites: “the training dataset comprising a plurality of training objects and a plurality of target values for respective ones from the plurality of training objects”. This limitation is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, specifically supervised learning. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Further, the claim recites: “during a first training iteration of the decision-tree based MLA” and “during a second training iteration of the decision-tree based MLA”. This limitation is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Further, the claim recites: “by the processor”. This limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Further, the claim recites: “storing, …, the first and the second tree of the decision-tree based MLA in a storage”. This limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Step 2B Significantly more: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements: “a decision-tree based Machine Learning Algorithm (MLA)”, “the training dataset comprising a plurality of training objects and a plurality of target values for respective ones from the plurality of training objects”, “during a first training iteration of the decision-tree based MLA”, and “during a second training iteration of the decision-tree based MLA” amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Elements that merely amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the additional elements: “the method executable by a processor having access to a training dataset” and “by the processor” amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. Elements that merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process cannot provide an inventive concept. Finally, the additional element “storing, …, the first and the second tree of the decision-tree based MLA in a storage” amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and further, is directed to storing and retrieving information in memory which courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner, see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II). The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further, the claim recites: “wherein the first tree structure has a plurality of leaf nodes including the first leaf node and the second lead node, and wherein all leaf values assigned to the plurality of lead nodes using the first noise-inducing function are exclusively non-null leaf values”. This limitation is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Elements that merely amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further, the claim recites: “wherein the first tree structure is a uniformly-distributed tree structure”. This limitation is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Elements that merely amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further, the claim recites: “wherein the second tree structure is generated using a second noise-inducing function”. This limitation recites mathematical concepts in addition to those identified in the rejection of the parent claim, thus the claim recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further, the claim recites: “wherein the generating the second tree comprises generating, …, the second tree structure using a Gradient Boosting (GB) technique”. This limitation recites mathematical concepts in addition to those identified in the rejection of the parent claim, thus the claim recites a judicial exception.
The claim further recites: “by the server”. This limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Elements that merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated, and further, the claim recites: “wherein the GB technique includes a randomized tree generation process”. This limitation is a continuation of the “wherein the generating the second tree comprises generating, by the server, the second tree structure using a Gradient Boosting (GB) technique” limitation identified as a rejection in the parent claim. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further, the claim recites: “generating, …, a plurality of first trees during a plurality of first training iterations, the first training iteration being one from the plurality of first training iterations, the first tree being one from the plurality of first trees”. This limitation recites mental processes in addition to those identified in the rejection of the parent claim. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception.
The claim further recites: “by the processor”. This limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Elements that merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further, the claim recites: “generating, …, a plurality of second trees during a plurality of second training iterations, the second training iteration being one from the plurality of second training iterations, the second tree being one from the plurality of second trees”. This limitation recites mental processes in addition to those identified in the rejection of the parent claim. Additionally, in light of applicant’s specification, this limitation recites mathematical concepts in addition to those identified in the rejection of the parent claim. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception.
The claim further recites: “by the processor”. This limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Elements that merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further, the claim recites: “wherein the decision-tree based MLA is being trained for performing a regression task during an in-use phase of the decision-tree based MLA”. This limitation is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Elements that merely amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further, the claim recites: “wherein the decision-tree based MLA is being trained for performing a classification task during an in-use phase of the decision-tree based MLA”. This limitation is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Elements that merely amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further, the claim recites: “wherein the first noise-inducing function is a function having a null average and a finite distribution”. This limitation is a continuation of the “generating a first leaf value for the first leaf node and a second leaf value for the second leaf node, the first and second leaf values being based on a first noise-inducing function such that the first leaf value and the second leaf value are non-null leaf values” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the rejection of the parent claim. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further, the claim recites: “wherein the loss function is at least one of a 0-1 loss, Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (NDCG), and PFound”. This limitation is a continuation of the “generating a third leaf value to the third leaf node, the third leaf value being based on an estimated gradient value of a loss function for at least one training object falling in the third leaf node” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the rejection of the parent claim. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further, the claim recites: “wherein the loss function is at least one of a hinge loss, logistic loss, and squared error loss”. This limitation is a continuation of the “generating a third leaf value to the third leaf node, the third leaf value being based on an estimated gradient value of a loss function for at least one training object falling in the third leaf node” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the rejection of the parent claim. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14:
Step 1 Statutory Category: Claim 14 is directed to a machine, which falls under one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Judicial exception: Claim 1 recites, in part, “generate a first tree using the plurality of training objects, the generating including: generate a first tree structure with a first leaf node and a second leaf node, at least one from the plurality of training objects falling in the first leaf node and none falling in the second leaf node”. This limitation, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the recitation of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), in this case a judgment or evaluation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Further, the claim recites: “generate a first leaf value for the first leaf node and a second leaf value for the second leaf node, the first and second leaf values being based on a first noise-inducing function such that the first leaf value and the second leaf value are non-null leaf values”. This limitation, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the recitation of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), in this case a judgment or evaluation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Additionally, this limitation covers the recitation of a mathematical calculation, as directed to “a claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number”. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Further, the claim recites: “generate a second tree using the training dataset, the generating including: generate a second tree structure with a third leaf node”. This limitation, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the recitation of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), in this case a judgment or evaluation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Additionally, in light of applicant’s specification paragraphs 0045-0046, this limitation covers the recitation of a mathematical calculation, as directed to “a claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number”. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Further, the claim recites: “generate a third leaf value to the third leaf node, the third leaf value being based on an estimated gradient value of a loss function for at least one training object falling in the third leaf node”. This limitation, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the recitation of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), in this case a judgment or evaluation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Additionally, this limitation covers the recitation of a mathematical calculation, as directed to “a claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number”. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Step 2A Prong 2 Integration into a practical application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites: “a decision-tree based Machine Learning Algorithm (MLA)”. This limitation is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Further, the claim recites: “a processor … the processor having access to a training dataset”. This limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Further, the claim recites: “the training dataset comprising a plurality of training objects and a plurality of target values for respective ones from the plurality of training objects”. This limitation is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, specifically supervised learning. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Further, the claim recites: “during a first training iteration of the decision-tree based MLA” and “during a second training iteration of the decision-tree based MLA”. This limitation is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Further, the claim recites: “store the first and the second tree of the decision-tree based MLA in a storage”. This limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Step 2B Significantly more: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements: “a decision-tree based Machine Learning Algorithm (MLA)”, “the training dataset comprising a plurality of training objects and a plurality of target values for respective ones from the plurality of training objects”, “during a first training iteration of the decision-tree based MLA”, and “during a second training iteration of the decision-tree based MLA” amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Elements that merely amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the additional element: “a processor … the processor having access to a training dataset” amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. Elements that merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process cannot provide an inventive concept. Finally, the additional element “store the first and the second tree of the decision-tree based MLA in a storage” amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and further, is directed to storing and retrieving information in memory which courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner, see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II). The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, and further, claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 2 respectively, and is rejected in the same manner and reasoning applying.
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, and further, claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 3 respectively, and is rejected in the same manner and reasoning applying.
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, and further, claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 4 respectively, and is rejected in the same manner and reasoning applying.
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, and further, claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 7 respectively, and is rejected in the same manner and reasoning applying.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, and further, claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 8 respectively, and is rejected in the same manner and reasoning applying.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, and further, claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 11 respectively, and is rejected in the same manner and reasoning applying.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 only. A complete prior art search was performed for these claims; however, no prior art was uncovered that discloses or fairly suggests the following claimed features:
After detailed search, the cited arts, neither alone nor in combination, teach the claimed subject matter of claims 1 and 14:
In claim 1 (and substantially similarly in claim 14):
… during a first training iteration of the decision-tree based MLA:
generating, by the processor, a first tree using the plurality of training objects, the generating including:
generating a first tree structure with a first leaf node and a second leaf node, at least one from the plurality of training objects falling in the first leaf node and none falling in the second leaf node; and
generating a first leaf value for the first leaf node and a second leaf value for the second leaf node, the first and second leaf values being based on a first noise-inducing function such that the first leaf value and the second leaf value are non-null leaf values;
during a second training iteration of the decision-tree based MLA:
generating, by the processor, a second tree using the training dataset, the generating including:
generating a second tree structure with a third leaf node; and generating a third leaf value to the third leaf node, the third leaf value being based on an estimated gradient value of a loss function for at least one training object falling in the third leaf node…
The closest prior art of record includes:
Ustimenko et al., SGLB: Stochastic Gradient Langevin Boosting, 07/04/2021, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.07248v4 discloses stochastic gradient Langevin boosting which is a SBG method that injects Gaussian noise directly into the SGB gradients estimation procedure and adds noise to the weak learners’ selection algorithm. However, Ustimenko does not disclose generating leaf values based on a noise inducing function such that the leaf values are non-null values. Further, while Ustimenko teaches a method that repeats until a stopping criteria is met, it does not disclose the specific two iteration structure, with a first tree generated with a first leaf node and a second leaf node, at least one from the plurality of training objects falling in the first leaf node and none falling in the second leaf node, where the leaf values are generated based on a noise inducing function such that the leaves are non-null; followed by a second iteration generating a tree and leaf values based on a gradient of a loss function as required by the claims.
G. Jagannathan, K. Pillaipakkamnatt and R. N. Wright, "A Practical Differentially Private Random Decision Tree Classifier," 2009 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops, Miami, FL, USA, 2009, pp. 114-121, doi: 10.1109/ICDMW.2009.93 discloses constructing privacy preserving decision trees and computes the entire decision tree and adds noise at the end to the leaves. However, Jagannathan does not disclose adding noise such that the leaf values of the tree are non-null, nor does it disclose a noise-inducing function as required by the claims. Further, Jagannathan adds noise to leaves during computation of the trees, not during construction and training of the trees as required by the claims.
Carreira-Perpiñán, et al., 2018. Alternating optimization of decision trees, with application to learning sparse oblique trees. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS'18). Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA, 1219–1229 discloses an algorithm that can take an input tree and produce a new tree with the same or similar structure but new parameters that provide lower misclassification error. The method teaches removing dead branches after convergence, dead branches arise when subtrees become empty because they receive no training points from their parent. However, this method does not disclose using a noise-inducing function to generate leaf values such that the leaves are non-null as required by the claims, but rather replacing the dead branch with a non-empty child’s subtree.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOLLY CLARKE SIPPEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3270. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. ET..
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, Kakali Chaki can be reached at (571)272-3719. 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.
/M.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2122
/KAKALI CHAKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights