DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on March 30, 2026.
Claims 1, 24 and 26 have been amended. Claims 6, 9-23, 25 and 31-34 have been cancelled. Claims 41-61 have been added. Claims 1-5, 7-8, 24, 26-30 and 35-61 are pending in the application. As such, claims 1-5, 7-8, 24, 26-30 and 35-61 have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 30, 2026 has been entered.
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
The drawings were received on January 19, 2024. These drawings have been accepted and considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
In view of the amendments to claims, the amendments to claims 1, 24 and 26, and the addition of new claims 41-61, have been acknowledged and entered.
In view of the amendments to claims, the previous rejections to claims 26-30, 32 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendments to claims, the rejections to claims 1-5 and 7-40 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 46, 48-50 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 46, line 3, reads “the output wires”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “the circuit output wires”. Claims 48-50 depend from claim 46, either directly or indirectly, and therefore inherit this rejection.
Claim 46, lines 4-5, reads “the stochastic matrices”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “the chosen plurality of stochastic matrices”. Claims 48-50 depend from claim 46, either directly or indirectly, and therefore inherit this rejection.
Claim 48, line 2, reads “the stochastic matrices”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “the chosen plurality of stochastic matrices”.
Claim 49, line 2, reads “the stochastic matrices”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “the chosen plurality of stochastic matrices”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 26-30, 39, 48-49, 53-57 and 59 are 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 48 recites the limitation " the distributions" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 49 recites the limitation " the distributions" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the user" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 27-30 depend from claim 26, either directly or indirectly, and therefore inherit this rejection.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the user" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the user" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 29-30 depend from claim 28, either directly or indirectly, and therefore inherit this rejection.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the user" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 39 recites the limitation "the user" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 53 recites the limitation "the user" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 54 recites the limitation "the user" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 55 recites the limitation "the user" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 56-57 depend from claim 55, either directly or indirectly, and therefore inherit this rejection.
Claim 56 recites the limitation "the user" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 59 recites the limitation "the user" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 41-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
A computer implemented method for
verifying a natural language sentence using a data set,
executed by a processing unit with an associated memory, an input interface and an output graphical user interface, the method comprising:
receiving, by the processing unit, the data set including entries arranged in columns;
receiving, as external input via the input interface, the natural language sentence-to be verified using the data set;
deriving, from the data set, input columns;
processing the natural language sentence to generate a grammar diagram;
generating, by processing the grammar diagram, a circuit representation of the natural language sentence, the circuit including nodes corresponding to grammatical components and edges corresponding to relationships between columns of the data set;
determining, by the processing unit using the data set, a stochastic matrix that is operable to predict one or more circuit output wires of the circuit representation, the determining including determining conditional probabilities of the circuit output wires conditioned on the input columns derived from the data set;
deriving, from the natural language sentence, an input probability distribution;
passing the input probability distribution into the stochastic matrix to produce a first output probability distribution;
obtaining, from the circuit representation of the natural language sentence, a second output probability distribution;
determining, by the processing unit, a numerical divergence measure between the first output probability distribution and the second output probability distribution,
the divergence measure including: a Kullback-Leibler divergence; a total variational distance; or a conditional entropy; and
displaying, via the output graphical user interface, the numerical divergence measure as a quantified degree of truth of the natural language sentence relative to the data set.
The claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. For example,
“verifying a natural language sentence using a data set” in the context of this claim encompasses a person reviewing a data set of sentences arranged in columns and evaluating each sentence for truthfulness,
“receiving, by the processing unit, the data set including entries arranged in columns” in the context of this claim encompasses a person retrieving a sample of a joint probability distribution from a resource which is columnar,
“receiving, as external input via the input interface, the natural language sentence-to be verified using the data set” in the context of this claim encompasses a person listening to a person asking a question in a common language,
“deriving, from the data set, input columns” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually creating columns,
“processing the natural language sentence to generate a grammar diagram” in the context of this claim encompasses a person drawing a diagram on a piece of paper representing the grammar of the question,
“generating, by processing the grammar diagram, a circuit representation of the natural language sentence, the circuit including nodes corresponding to grammatical components and edges corresponding to relationships between columns of the data set” in the context of this claim encompasses a person modifying the diagram by drawing a circuit on a second piece of paper,
“determining, by the processing unit using the data set, a stochastic matrix that is operable to predict one or more circuit output wires of the circuit representation, the determining including determining conditional probabilities of the circuit output wires conditioned on the input columns derived from the data set” in the context of this claim encompasses a person inscribing a stochastic matrix corresponding to the circuit on a third piece of paper,
“deriving, from the natural language sentence, an input probability distribution” in the context of this claim encompasses a person inscribing an equivalent probability distribution corresponding to the sentence on a fourth piece of paper, where the probability distribution is compatible with the probabilistic function,
“passing the input probability distribution into the stochastic matrix to produce a first output probability distribution” in the context of this claim encompasses a person calculating the output probability distribution the input probability distribution via use of the stochastic matrix,
“obtaining, from the circuit representation of the natural language sentence, a second output probability distribution” in the context of this claim encompasses a person inscribing a second output probability distribution corresponding to the sentence on a fifth piece of paper,
“determining, by the processing unit, a numerical divergence measure between the first output probability distribution and the second output probability distribution” in the context of this claim encompasses a person comparing the first and second output probability distributions and determining a similarity measure and expressing the similarity as a distance,
“the divergence measure including: a Kullback-Leibler divergence; a total variational distance; or a conditional entropy” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the divergence is measured in one of these specified manners
“displaying, via the output graphical user interface, the numerical divergence measure as a quantified degree of truth of the natural language sentence relative to the data set” in the context of this claim encompasses a person writing on a piece of paper for the other person a text sentence which states in words the evaluated distance where the sentence has converted the distance into a measure of truthfulness.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
A computer
a processing unit
a memory
an input interface
an output graphical user interface.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims do not add limitations that would either integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or could help the Claim as a whole to amount to significantly more than the Abstract idea identified for the Independent Claim.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the grammar diagram comprises a directed graph.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the grammar diagram comprises a directed graph,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person using a directed graph structure when drawing the diagram.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
further comprising displaying the numerical divergence measure as a distance value.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“displaying the numerical divergence measure as a distance value,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person drawing on a piece of paper a number which describes mathematically the evaluated distance.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the determining the stochastic matrix comprises defining the stochastic matrix based on the data set.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the determining the stochastic matrix comprises defining the stochastic matrix based on the data set,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person creating a stochastic matrix based on the data.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the determining the stochastic matrix comprises using the circuit representation and the joint distribution in conjunction with a Bayesian disintegration algorithm.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the determining the stochastic matrix comprises using the circuit representation and the joint distribution in conjunction with a Bayesian disintegration algorithm,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person using a Bayesian disintegration algorithm when determining the stochastic matrix.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
further comprising
obtaining, by processing the data set, a chosen plurality of stochastic matrices with some number of the input columns as input wires and some number of columns as the output wires,
the obtaining including
choosing the chosen plurality of stochastic matrices in accordance with a metric that provides a degree to which the stochastic matrices are deterministic,
wherein the determining the stochastic matrix comprises
recalling, from the chosen plurality of stochastic matrices, the stochastic matrix.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“obtaining, by processing the data set, a chosen plurality of stochastic matrices with some number of the input columns as input wires and some number of columns as the output wires,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person generating multiple matrices as needed,
“choosing the chosen plurality of stochastic matrices in accordance with a metric that provides a degree to which the stochastic matrices are deterministic,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person choosing a matrix based on the feature described,
“recalling, from the chosen plurality of stochastic matrices, the stochastic matrix,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person obtaining the appropriate matrix from those which were generated manually.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the determining the conditional probabilities comprises:
gleaning, from the natural language sentence, values;
and
filtering the data set according to the values.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“gleaning, from the natural language sentence, values,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person identifying values from the sentence,
“filtering the data set according to the values,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person filtering the data set by the values gleaned.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the grammar diagram comprises arrows representative of the stochastic matrices and nodes representative of the distributions.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the grammar diagram comprises arrows representative of the stochastic matrices and nodes representative of the distributions,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person using a arrows when drawing the matrix.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the grammar diagram comprises arrows representative of the distributions and the nodes representative of the stochastic matrices.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the grammar diagram comprises arrows representative of the distributions and the nodes representative of the stochastic matrices,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person using a arrows when drawing the matrix.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the obtaining the chosen plurality of stochastic matrices comprises:
detecting, among the chosen plurality of stochastic matrices, a given matrix,
where the given matrix uses a column with unique data;
and
removing the given matrix from the chosen plurality of matrices.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“detecting, among the chosen plurality of stochastic matrices, a given matrix,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person selecting a matrix,
“where the given matrix uses a column with unique data,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person selecting a matrix which has unique data in a column,
“removing the given matrix from the chosen plurality of matrices,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person removing the matrix from the group of matrices.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
further comprising:
finding, in the natural language sentence, a statistical property that can be determined from the circuit; and
verifying the statistical property.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“finding, in the natural language sentence, a statistical property that can be determined from the circuit” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually looking at the sentence and identifying a statistical property which is based on the circuit,
“verifying the statistical property” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually verifying the statistical property that he identified, by double checking his decision and analysis.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
further comprising
determining a neural network to predict the circuit output wires.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“determining a neural network to predict the circuit output wires” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually programming a very simple off-the-shelf neural network which is being used.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a neural network.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the natural language sentence represents an attempt to predict a given circuit output wire and
the method further comprises
displaying, to the user, an indication of existence of the neural network.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the natural language sentence represents an attempt to predict a given circuit output wire” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually ensuring the sentence received is trying to guess from the circuit a certain output wire,
“displaying, to the user, an indication of existence of the neural network” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually writing on a piece of paper that a very simple off-the-shelf neural network is being used.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 54 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
further comprising
displaying, to the user, an indication of input variables used, by the stochastic matrix, to predict the given circuit output wire.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“displaying, to the user, an indication of input variables used, by the stochastic matrix, to predict the given circuit output wire” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually writing on a piece of paper that he is using specific variables within a very simple off-the-shelf neural network which predicts output wires for the circuit.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
further comprising:
predicting, using the stochastic matrix, the given circuit output wire, thereby producing a predicted circuit output wire; and
displaying, to the user, an indication of the predicted circuit output wire.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“predicting, using the stochastic matrix, the given circuit output wire, thereby producing a predicted circuit output wire” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually using a very simple off-the-shelf neural network which predicts output wires for the circuit, and labeling the predicted output wires as such,
“displaying, to the user, an indication of the predicted circuit output wire” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually writing on a piece of paper labeled predicted output wires for the circuit.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
further comprising
displaying, to the user, a warning indicating:
that the predicted circuit output wire has been predicted using the stochastic matrix; and
that the stochastic matrix learns features that are not in the data set and, as such, is prone to hallucination.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“displaying, to the user, a warning indicating: that the predicted circuit output wire has been predicted using the stochastic matrix; and that the stochastic matrix learns features that are not in the data set and, as such, is prone to hallucination” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually writing on a piece of paper the he was using a very simple stochastic matrix which predicts output wires for the circuit, and the very simple stochastic matrix can provide false responses because it may have limitations regarding its features.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 57 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
further comprising:
receiving a request to display the indication of the predicted circuit output wire; and
responsive to the receiving the request,
carrying out the displaying the indication of the predicted circuit output wire.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“receiving a request to display the indication of the predicted circuit output wire” in the context of this claim encompasses a person hearing a person ask for the results corresponding to the predicted output wires for the circuit,
“carrying out the displaying the indication of the predicted circuit output wire” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually writing on a piece of paper labeled predicted output wires for the circuit.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
further comprising processing the stochastic matrix to add a variable, thereby producing a processed stochastic matrix.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“further comprising processing the stochastic matrix to add a variable, thereby producing a processed stochastic matrix,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person adding a variable to the matrix.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
further comprising passing a new distribution through the processed stochastic matrix and offering, to the user, output of the processed stochastic matrix as an improved prediction.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“further comprising passing a new distribution through the processed stochastic matrix and offering, to the user, output of the processed stochastic matrix as an improved prediction,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person using a matrix when processing the distribution, and providing results to another person on paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 60 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the variable comprises an input variable.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the variable comprises an input variable,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person obtaining the variable from the input.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 61 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
wherein the variable comprises an output variable.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the variable comprises an output variable,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person providing the variable as an output to another person on a piece of paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 24, 35-38 and 40 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 1 is allowed because the prior art, either alone or in reasonable combination, does not teach the combination of claim elements as recited in the currently amended claim.
Claims 2-5, 7-8, 24, 35-38 and 40 depend from claim 1 either directly or indirectly, and therefore, by virtue of this dependency, are also allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J. MUELLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1875. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm (Eastern).
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, Daniel C. Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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.
PAUL MUELLER
Examiner
Art Unit 2657
/PAUL J. MUELLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2657