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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is response to the communication filed on November 10, 2025. Claims 1-17, 21-23 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding art rejection filed on November 10, 2025 have been considered but are moot in the view of new ground of rejection. Applicant argument regarding 101 reject is not persuasive.
Regarding 101 rejection applicant argues the claims cannot practically be performed in the human mind because they states executing …, hashing …., storing …., providing …, and executing ….
In response examiner respectfully disagree. The limitations executing (both instance), hashing, storing, and determining as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. User can mentally execute sequence, hashes the data, memorize the result (storing), and determine configuration by reading the data that associated with the first model. Therefore, the limitations executing (both instance), hashing, storing, and determining are a mental process. The limitation receiving and providing can be interpreted as additional limitation but these are insignificant extra-solution activity. The receiving step and providing step as recited amounts to mere data gathering for use in the determination step and execution step, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Accordingly, even in combination, 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 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 element of receiving and providing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
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 1-19, 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding the claim 1, it recites executing, by a computing device, a modeling sequence comprising a first model to obtain a first result; hashing data representative of a first configuration associated with the first model to create a first hash; storing, in a database, the first result in a first location, the first hash pointing to the first location in the database; receiving, at the computing device from a user, a request to rerun the modeling sequence comprising the first model; determining that the first configuration is associated with the first model and that the first hash points to the first result in the first location; and providing, without rerunning the first model, the first result as an input to a second model of the modeling sequence by retrieving, via the first hash pointing to the first result location in the database, the first result from storage and executing the second model based on the first result.
The claim recited the limitation of executing, hashing, storing, and determining as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. User can mentally execute the modeling sequence, hash the data and memorize (storing as claimed) it. Further user can mentally determine the configuration of the first model and hash point as claimed, if necessary, can use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) can be used. Hence, the limitations are a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III, B, If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand.").
The claim recites two additional elements: receiving, at the computing device from a user, a request to rerun the modeling sequence comprising the first model and providing, without rerunning the first model, the first result as an input to a second model of the modeling sequence by retrieving, via the first hash pointing to the first result location in the database, the first result from storage. The receiving and providing steps as recited amounts to mere data gathering for use in the determination step, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Accordingly, even in combination, 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 the 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 element of receiving and providing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of reducing modeling sequence. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the data representative of the first configuration comprises input data, configuration data, and source code data, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of reducing modeling sequence. The claim recites the limitations of wherein hashing data comprises hashing the input data, the configuration data, and the source code data into a hashed string, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of reducing modeling sequence. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the input data and the configuration data comprise one or more of: input conditions, model parameters, or model constraints, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of reducing modeling sequence. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the modeling sequence comprises the first model and one or more forecasting models, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of reducing modeling sequence. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the first model imports a library, the hashing data representative of the first configuration comprises hashing version data associated with the library, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 21 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 21 recites the same abstract idea of reducing modeling sequence. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the request is received in response to an affirmative action by the user to request a rerun, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 22 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 22 recites the same abstract idea of reducing modeling sequence. The claim recites determining, based on the request to rerun the modeling sequence comprising the first model, that the first configuration associated with the first model has not changed since the first result was stored in the database, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 23 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 23 recites the same abstract idea of reducing modeling sequence. The claim recites wherein the request is automatically received in response to one or more configuration changes to the second model, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
As to claims 7-18, they have similar limitations as of claims 1-6, and 21 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 1-6, and 21 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-19, 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bharathi et al. (Pub. No. : US 20210294655 A1) in the view of Beecham et al. (Pub. No. : US 20220407861 A1), Schoenberg et al. (Patent. No. : US 11929155 B1) and Veerasingam (Pub. No. : US 20180211891 A1)
As to claim 1 Bharathi teaches a method of reducing modeling sequences, the method comprising:
executing, by a computing device, a modeling sequence comprising a first model to obtain a first result (paragraph [0016]: A physical system can be modeled by a set of analytical models (or “model set”) that can be executed in sequence);
hashing data representative of a first configuration associated with the first model to create a first hash (paragraphs [0007]: the method further includes generating a hash map comprising a first portion configured to store model set identifiers associated with the plurality of model sets, and a second portion configured to store the plurality of execution times);
storing, in a database, the first result in a first location, (paragraph [0023]: executions results store 218)
determining that the first configuration is associated with the first model (paragraphs [0007], [0008], [0023]: The deployment system 204 can include orchestration information service 220 that can store, retrieve and modify names of model sets/analytical models in the model sets, model set identifiers (e.g., unique for each model set stored in the deployment system 204), the sequence in which analytical models of a given model set need to be executed, mapping between outputs and inputs of analytical models in a given model set, etc. Note that Bharathi retrieve implementation information (i.e. configuration information) by searching model deployment database, wherein the “searching” essentially indicating determining); and
providing without returning the first model, the first result by retrieving, via the first hash, the first result from storage (paragraph [0025]-[0026], [0030]: the orchestration prioritization service 216 can perform a search in the executions results store 218 and return information, wherein the execution of the model sets can be performed by the distributed task queue 212 that can receive the sorted hash map from the orchestration prioritization service 216. The distributed task queue 212 can identify the retrieved model set information for a given model set associated with a given expected execution time in the hash map).
Bharathi does not explicitly disclose but Beecham teaches the first hash pointing to the first location in the database and retrieving via the first hash pointing to the first result location in the database (paragraphs [0007], [0025], [0104]: database 14 is a relational database, having a plurality of tables, each with a set of columns corresponding to different fields, or types of values, stored in rows, or records. The TXID may be a pointer, as described herein, in that it points to a location of data within the second database. In various embodiments, such as those where the second database includes an acyclic graph of hash pointers (like cryptographic hash pointers), like a blockchain-based database, the TXID may be a hash pointer (like a cryptographic hash pointer) to a location (e.g., like a node) or otherwise operable to obtain a location (e.g., of a node) within the graph where corresponding data is stored) and the first hash points to the first result in the first location and retrieve data from a database arrangement of a storage environment (paragraphs [0022], [0104]: database 14 and the secure distributed storage 16 may each store a portion of the data accessed with the client computing devices 12, in some cases with pointers therebetween stored in one or both of these datastores wherein the database includes an acyclic graph of hash pointers (like cryptographic hash pointers), like a blockchain-based database, the TXID may be a hash pointer (like a cryptographic hash pointer) to a location (e.g., like a node) or otherwise operable to obtain a location (e.g., of a node) within the graph where corresponding data is stored).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bharathi by adding above limitation as taught by Beecham to locate and obtain data that which was stored (Beecham, paragraph [0104]).
Bharathi and Beecham do not explicitly disclose but Schoenberg receiving, at the computing device from a user, a request to rerun the modeling sequence comprising the first model (Column 13 lines 36-37: re-run the data modeling module 310 at predetermined intervals of time). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bharathi and Beecham by adding above limitation as taught by Schoenberg to improve general accuracy of the model (Schoenberg, column 18 line 43).
Bharathi, Beecham and Schoenberg do not explicitly disclose but Veerasingam teaches the first result as an input to a second model of the modeling sequence and executing the second model based on the first result (paragraphs [0026]-[0027]: provide results of a first model (i.e., corresponding to a first set of predicted critical dimensions) as inputs to a second model. In other words, results of the second model (i.e., corresponding to a second set of predicted critical dimensions) are calculated based in part on the results of the first model and executes the modeling). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bharathi, Beecham and Schoenberg by adding above limitation as taught by Veerasingam to estimate of critical dimensions of substrates processed subsequent to updating the models may be improved (Veerasingam , paragraph [0015])
As to claim 2 Bharathi together with Beecham, Schoenberg and Veerasingam teaches a method according to claim 1. Bharathi teaches wherein the data representative of the first configuration comprises input data, configuration data, and source code data (paragraphs [0003], [0007], [0035]).
As to claim 3 Bharathi together with Beecham, Schoenberg and Veerasingam teaches a method according to claim 1. Beecham teaches wherein hashing data comprises hashing the input data, the configuration data, and the source code data into a hashed string (paragraphs [0022], [0025], [0104]).
As to claim 4 Bharathi together with Beecham, Schoenberg and Veerasingam teaches a method according to claim 2. Bharathi teaches wherein the input data and the configuration data comprise one or more of: input conditions, model parameters, or model constraints (paragraphs [0017], [0020]).
As to claim 5 Bharathi together with Beecham, Schoenberg and Veerasingam teaches a method according to claim 1. Bharathi teaches wherein the modeling sequence comprises the first model and one or more forecasting models (paragraph [0017]).
As to claim 6 Bharathi together with Beecham, Schoenberg and Veerasingam teaches a method according to claim 1. Schoenberg teaches wherein the first model imports a library, the hashing data representative of the first configuration comprises hashing version data associated with the library (column 7 lines 24-26).
As to claim 21 Bharathi together with Beecham, Schoenberg and Veerasingam teaches a method according to claim 1. Bharathi teaches wherein the request is received in response to an affirmative action by the user to request a rerun (paragraph [0031]).
As to claim 22 Bharathi together with Beecham, Schoenberg and Veerasingam teaches a method according to claim 1. Schoenberg determining, based on the request to rerun the modeling sequence comprising the first model, that the first configuration associated with the first model has not changed since the first result was stored in the database (Column 13 lines 36-37, claim 18 lines 61-63).
As to claim 23 Bharathi together with Beecham, Schoenberg and Veerasingam teaches a method according to claim 1. Schoenberg wherein the request is automatically received in response to one or more configuration changes to the second model (Column 9 line 1-3).
As to claims 7-18, they have similar limitations as of claims 1-6, 21 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 1-6, 21 above.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in its entirety as potentially teaching of all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD I UDDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/MD I UDDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169