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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 02/06/2024. Claim(s) 1 - 20 are presently pending and are examined in this first action on the merits (FAOM).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 02/06/2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
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.
Step 1
Independent claim 1 is directed toward a method, claim 13 is directed toward a system and claim 18 towards a computer readable medium. Therefore, each of the independent claims 1, 13 and 18 along with the corresponding dependent claims 2-12, 14-17 and 19-20 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
Step 2A Prong 1
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: (1) mental processes, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (3) mathematical concepts.
In this case, the independent claims 1, 13 and 18 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes.
Independent claim 13 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. Claim 1 recites:
A system for updating a machine learning model for vehicles, the system comprising:
a first vehicle comprising a first machine learning model and one or more processors
and a second vehicle comprising a second machine learning model, wherein the one or more processors are programmed to:
calculate a benefit score for the first vehicle based on an energy for training a machine learning model and a value of training data and obtain a benefit score for the second vehicle;
determine the first vehicle as a trainer for training the machine learning model based on a comparison of benefit scores of the first vehicle and the second vehicle;
aggregate the machine learning models of the first vehicle and the second vehicle;
calculate an edge encounter score for the first vehicle and obtain an edge encounter score for the second vehicle;
select one of the first vehicle and the second vehicle having a higher edge encounter score as a representer; and
and instruct the representer to update the aggregated machine learning model to an edge server.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind.
For example, “calculate …” in the context of this claim encompasses a person to computing a cost benefit ratio (score) on whether to use the energy available for computing in the vehicle to update a machine learning model based on the value that will be derived by having an updated model based on the richness/entropy of the data;
“determine . trainer...” in the context of this claim encompasses a person to look at the score achieved for a pair of vehicles and choosing one amongst the two as the trainer;
“calculate an edge encounter …” in context of this claim is a person continuously looking at the path associated with travel of the vehicle and a map with location of the edge node, and mentally calculating which of the two vehicles has a higher probability to connect with the edge node and successfully upload the model to an edge server, based on various factors including based on their position, speed, heading, and the speed of the data connection to the edge server.
“select...” in the context of this claim encompasses a person to identify one vehicle from the pair based on the computed score as the representor of the pair to the edge server
As explained above, independent claim 13 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claims 1 and 18, which are of similar scope to claim 1, likewise recite at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1. 1
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system for updating a machine learning model for vehicles, the system comprising:
a first vehicle comprising a first machine learning model and one or more processors
and a second vehicle comprising a second machine learning model, wherein the one or more processors are programmed to:
calculate a benefit score for the first vehicle based on an energy for training a machine learning model and a value of training data and obtain a benefit score for the second vehicle;
determine the first vehicle as a trainer for training the machine learning model based on a comparison of benefit scores of the first vehicle and the second vehicle;
aggregate the machine learning models of the first vehicle and the second vehicle;
calculate an edge encounter score for the first vehicle and obtain an edge encounter score for the second vehicle;
select one of the first vehicle and the second vehicle having a higher edge encounter score as a representer; and
and instruct the representer to update the aggregated machine learning model to an edge server.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “comprising a machine learning model” the examiner submits that this limitation of merely using a generic machine learning model algorithm to perform the process is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of granularity, to the judicial exception. Regarding the additional limitation of “one or more processors” the examiner submits that this limitation of merely using a computer (processor) to perform the process is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of granularity, to the judicial exception. Regarding the additional limitation of “aggregate the machine learning models of the first vehicle and the second vehicle” the examiner submits that this limitation of merely using a computer (processor) to perform the process is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of granularity, to the judicial exception.
Regarding the additional limitation of “instruct the representer to update the aggregated machine learning model to an edge server” the examiner submits that this limitation of merely using a computer (processor) to perform the process is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of granularity, and merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose computer.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing significant that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, independent claims 1, 13 and 18 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1, 13 and 18 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a processor)” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “instruct the representer to update the aggregated machine learning model to an edge server” is recited at a high level of granularity and amounts to mere data gathering, the examiner submits that these limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “a processor” and “instruct the representer to update the aggregated machine learning model to an edge server” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the background recites that the exchange of messages is between the vehicles and the edge node, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent Claims 1, 13, and 18 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claims 2-12, 14-17 and 19-20 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent Claims 2-12, 14-17 and 19-20 when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent claim(s) 2-12, 14-17 and 19-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent Claims 2-12, 14-17 and 19-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claims 1, 13 and 18.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-30 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-20 would be allowable if they overcome 35 U.S.C. 101 objection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants should take note of the prior art in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHUTOSH PANDE whose telephone number is (571)272-6269. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00am -5:00 PM EST.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 5712721516. 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.
/A.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Thomas Ingram/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights